AD-A021 201

A METHOD FOR PREDICTING HELICOPTER HUB DRAG

Thomas W. Sheehy, et al

United Technologies Corporation

Prepared for:
Army Air Mobility Research and Development
Laboratory

January 1976

Reproduced From
Best Available Copy

DISTRIBUTED BY:

National Technical Infornntion Service

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF CG0-2,IERCE

&Oor12, Dpr?-T 0
 USAAMCDL-TR- 75-43

06 409 1

A METHOD FOR PREDICTING HELICOPTER HUB DRAG

United Technologies Corporation

Sikorsky Aircraft Division
ym.4tratford, Conn. 06602
0

•January 1976

nal Report

I Approved for public release; I

distribution unlimited.

Prepared for
EUSTIS DIRECTORATE
U. S. ARMY AIR MOBILITY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT LAF4ORATORY
Fort Eustis, Va. 23604

NATIONAL TECHNICAL
INFORMATION SERVICE
U O.po.t,,ct
D Cf.-o ,@
VA 2215I
j.....up.
 EUSTIS DIflWTOflATE P0!7tTtCN S"AMrTNT

Thes rcprwt has been revic'Mcd by the Eustis Directorate. U. S. Army Air Mobility
Re"torh and Dzwlo~pmeM -Laboratoryand is cor.dcred to be technically sound. The
Purpoae of the program was to dev~elop a proceduret rdc
rdc hh rgo
' rgo zi
t~elicopter rotor aNd hub pylon. Ist

The program ws conducte Under the techr-ical IManament of William D. Vann of

the TechnolT APPIýcations Division.

DISCLAIMERS

The* findings in thiesreport are "a't to be construed n Of ficial Deartment of ithe Atmy position unless 6o
a4
desinated by Other ewthorited docuoments.

VW'en Government drawvings, specifications, or Other data are used for any purpose Other than in conne~ction
tovth a definitely related Grovernmewnt procurement operation, the United Sltaes Governmenort thereby incurs no
responsibility nor aity obligation wohatsoeverf and the fact that the Governmente may have formulated, furnished.
or in any way supplied the said dravvings. specifications, or other data is not to be regardel by impolication or
otherwiiseo to in any manner licensing itheoholder or any other person or corwp~raiion. or conveying any rights or
permission, to maisnufacture, use, nr setl any patented invention that maey in ano, way be related thereto.

Trade names cotc-d in this reliort do not constitute an official encdo-jrwrint or approval or. the use of such
connrrororciel hardvwae or software.

DISPOSITION INSTRUCTIONS

Destrov thit report vwhe no longer needed. Do not return it to the originirtor.

.1g
 Uncles ifled

AEP0RT DOCUMENTATI014 PAGE Nt"It COIIETJR Ft

I OR*OVy
hawba row ACCCUMNN.
mc
a mCIV~ur*6 CATA6IOGwUENIef

USAAflML-TR-75-48[1
4 TITLE ftiod *.)~t~
, a, TV"E of LEP*, a PEICOD COVa"20

A METHOD FOR PREDICTING HELICOPTER FINAL REPORT

HUB DRAG a.oclgmoseu 00.461001
nu ma
nA
____________________________________ SER-SMS4
I AW10..Oke) 1. conTRAc ON 64A*T RUGIVIe.j
Thoams W. Sheehy NW~u-74-C-(X)50
David R. Clark
6PROVRNON.,G OU1GAN.ZATSON RARE AND ADDRESS to AEs~a
4LaW4NT. PROJKCT. Thu
United Technologies Corporation =0 W0112221 48 01True
Sikorsky Aircraft Division 624 F62 70
Stratford, rorinecticut 00660 00 EK
to CONTROL1LINO O1F~ICI NtaM AND &PORES II. OEPONT DATE
Eustis Directorate January 1976
U. S. Armty Air Mobility R&D Laboratory is107" FPA9
AG4C N ADDESEi
a Wth~~ 6-.~ C..MNIIA@ OfrGl-) 1S. SECURITY CILIA. (.4 IN& .IN.4

Unclassified
Ir. oCkI1aFCATION DOWNGRADING

16DS R1uTSON STATEMENT (of OWS RlUAM

N`5

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

17. OSSYRISUTION STATEMENT (008.0-1 6Nh-.dht m e.EII-Off

ATOmn -o'

00. SUPOLEmENTaNY NOTIES4

IS. XRET
WORDS (C..WAN..1t M-,... 84,n1 $0....
0"000- OW 0AW IV60 ..a

Rotor Hub Fuselages

Drag Pln
Three-Dimensional Pyotetas lo
Bodies Mo"ling
W. ASITRAC T (C'WwM. -~ f "00001
SOONO~ A" MS.EIO' 6? We.*

A procedure has been developed to determine the contribution of the rotor hub
to the total helicopter drag. The method developed uses a three-dimensional
potential flow analysis to determine the flow environment inwhich the hub
operates combined with empirical data in order to predict the drag of the hub
and its associated interference drag. Predictions using the method are in
good agreement with test data for unfaired and faired rotor hubs.

AN TV43 EI1OOIO*ISOO.T Unclassified.

SECURITY CLAWFIICATfON OF tHIS PAGE (Win 01.
 Jclassifled
C..AS-ICAI
I.VWY 6M Of TWS P A0aGlrm. !AM Z.....d)

20. ABSTRACT (cont'd)

A review of available rotor hub drag test data was conducted in order to
identify the factors affecting helicopter rotor hub drag. The data base
established was used in the development of the hub drag prediction method
and also to define a systematic wind tunnel ti.st program to refine and
verify the drag prediction method and to investigate in detail the
parameters affecting the dr;ag contribution of the rotor hub.
The results of the data review indicate that the primary factors affecting
the rotor hNo drag and its associated interference drag are the swept
frontal area, the increase In the local dynamic pressure due to the
fuselage/pylon configuration, and the pylon shape.

Unclassified
SECuRITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGC(WI" Dole EtmdMr
 PREFACE

This program was sponsored by the Eustis Directorate, U. S.

Army Air Mobility Research and Development Labcratory
(Contract DAAJ02-74-C-0050) and was monitorod by Mr. William
D. Vann. The authors express their appreciation to Mr.
Vann for his assistance during the courst.' of this study.

3
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pae

PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ................ 6

INTRODUCTION ....................... . . 9

".UB DRAG DATA REVIEW ............... .. 10

HUB DRAG PREDICTION METHOD . . ............ 18

Method Development ...... ................ 18

Aerodynamic Analysis Technique .... ........ . 25

Method Application and Cnrrelation .......... 29

HUB FAIRING DESIGN. ................... . . ... 34

WIND TUNNEL TEST DEFINITION . ........... 35

CONCLUSIONS .............. .................... 39

REFERENCES ........................... . . .... 41

BIBLIOGRAPHY ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

APPENDIXES

A. DESCRIPTION AND USE OF AUTOMATED PANELING

TECHNIQUE - PROGRAMS Y179A, Y179C . . . . 71

B. DESCRIPTION AND USE OF THE THREE-DIMENSIONAL

AERODYNAMIC ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE - PROGRAM
Y179L ........... ................ .. 89

C. DESCRIPTION AND USE O"? THE HUB DRAG

PREDICTION PROGRAM - Y179Z .......... .. 105

LIST OF SYMBOLS. . . .................. 107

5
Pwoc in page blank
 LIST OF TLLUSTRATIONS
Figure

1 Trand of Rotor Hub Incremental Drag With

Aircraft Gross Weight. . . . . . . . . . . 45

2 Rotor Hub Drag Contribution to Total

Helicopter Drag ........ ...... 46

3 flub Drag Trend With Hub Frontal Area for

Unfaired fHuos . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 47

4 Hub Incremental Drag Trend With Hub

Frontal Area for Unfaired Hubs ...... 48

5 General Types of Rotor flub Fairings .... 49

6 Faired Hub Incremental Drag Variation With

Fairing Thickness to Diameter Ratio . . . o 50

7 Effect of flub-Pylon Separation Distance

on Hub Interference Drag . ....... 51
8 Variation of Incremental Hub Drag With
Body Attitude ........ . . . . .. . 52

9 Rotational Effects on Incremental Rotor

Hub Drag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

10 Effect of Mach Number Variation on

Incremental Hub Drag . . . . . 0 * . 54
11 Comparison of Full-Srale and One-Sixth
Scale Rotor flub Drag Test Results . . . . 55

12 Pylon Drag Trends With Pylon Length-to-

Height Ratio . . . .0. .. .. * . 5
"6

13 Example of a General Helicopter

Configuration With in Unfaired Rotor Hub . 57

14 Example of a General Helicopter

Configuration With an Ellipsoidal Faired
Hub . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
15 Example of a General Helicopter
Configuration With a Rigid Rotor Hub 59
Fairing . . . . . . .. ...

16 Geometric Model of a Simulated Fuselage/ 60

Pylon Configuration .......

/ /
 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued)

17 General Pylon Conifigurations . . . . . . . 61

18 Calculated Surface Pressures Along the

Centerlines of Type A Pylons . . . . . . . 62

19 Calculated Surface Pressures Along the

Centerlines of Type B Pylons .. .. .. .. 63
20 Calculated Surface Pressures Along the
Centerlines of Type C Pylons. ............... 64
21 General Ellipsoidal Fairing Characteristics 65

22 Calculated Surface Pressures Along the Tops

of General Ellipsoidal Fairings . . . . . . 66

23 Calculated Surface Pressures Along the Sides

of General E41ipsoidal Fairings . . . . . . 67

24 Calculated Equivalent Forebody Pressure

Coefficients for General Ellipsoidal
F airings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

25 Geometric Model of a Pylon/Simulated

Fuselage Upper Surface Configuration .. 69
26 Comparison of Calculated Surface Pressures
for a Pylon Configuration With and Without
a Complete Fuselage Simulation ......... ..... 69
27 Rigid Rotor Hub Fairing Designed to Reduce
Rotor Hub Incremental Drag . . . . . . . . 70

A-i CH--53E Fuselage Generated by Automated

Paneling Technique . . . . . . . . . . . . .~ 83

A-2 Description of Segment Types and Input

Points for APT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

A-3 Sample Input Points and Resulting Output

for Cross Section Generated by APT
(Rear View . ) .... . . .. ... . . .. 85

A-4 Required input order for Segments

Describing a Cross Section . . . . . . . . 86

A-5 Example of Fuselage Sections Combined to

Form Complete Aircraft . .. .. .. ... . 87

7
N
8W

LIST OF ILLUS-ifRATIONS (Continued)

Figure Page
A-6 Required Input Order for Corner Points
Describing an Input Panel ......... 88
B-i Panel Representation of Body Used in
Three-Dimensional Aerodynamic Analysis
Technique (179L) .... .......... 100
B-2 General Arrangement of Lifting Section
Vortex Lattice ietwor't .......... 101

B-3 Comparison of Experimental and Calculated

Surface Pressures on RSRA One-Sixth
Scale Model . . . . . . . . . . .0. . . . . 102

B-4 Comparison of Experimental and C,,lculated

Surface Pressures on a 45-Degree Swept Wing 102
B-5 Comparison of Experimental and Calculated
Surface Pressures on Model 1 Fuselage
(Reference: NASA TM X-3185) . . . . . . . 103

B-6 Estimated CPU Time for Y119L on IBM 360

System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

8
7 -, . :7m .. • . . ~.

I NTR1 ODUCT ION 4

4

The heli.zopter has traditionally been used to operate in and

out of con0'ertc-md and remot/t areas. Because of the low flight
speeds assoc-.Iated with this role, overcoming the aerodynamic
drag of the fuselage has consued a relatively small percentage
of tha tota.t tkwer required; consequently, errors in the design
phase parasite drag estimate did rcif have a crucial impact on
the overall ai.craft performance. Today's helicopters, however
require relatii&ly high speeA and long range capabilities,
making l1m drag an important design uriterion and an accurate
drag estimate in the design process a necessity.
The rotor hub is a high-drag component of the helicopter and
represents a significant perr'entage of the total aircraft drag.
Efforts to reduce the drag of the helicopter, therefore, must
Lecessarily include a reduction in the drag of the rotor hub.
Several wind tunnel test programs have been conducted in an
effort to identify low-drag hub configurations. To date, no
mechanically sound, practical solution has been found.
In an effort to better define the parameters affecting the
contribution of the rotor hub to the total drag ai, to
facilitate accurate prediction of the hub drag, a review of
available hub drag test data was conducted and a method
developed to predict the hub drag. Me data obtained from the
review were used, along with the hub drag prediction method,
to defina a systematic wind tunnel test program to further
investigate the parameters affecting the hub drag and to re-
fine and verify the hub drag prediction method.

I
9
 HUB DRAG DATA REVIEW
Before discussing the parameters associated with rhe drag of
the rotor hub, it is appropriate that its signifirance be well
established. A sunmary of rotor hub drag trends wi#.* gross
weight i.s shown in Figure 1. rhe geometric compIeex.zjr of the
rotor hub (i.e., articulated, hingeless, faired) is Gaowin to
be a strong influencing factor in determining the contribution
of the hub drag to the total helicopter drag. Figur-e :
demonstrates the magnitude of the hub drag contri.!-iop. The
hub and its associated interFerence drag (i.e., tht: .1rag
created by the alteration of the flow conditions auout a body
due to the proximity of another body) Js responsible for
between 20% and 33% of the total drag of current production
helicopters. Most current helicopter fuselages have not been
designed for high-speed operation, and consequently low drag
was not a primary design ccnsideration. For this reason most
helic7pter fuselages are aerodynamically "unclean"; consequent-
ly, the potential exists for a considerable reduction in the
fuselage drag itself. 1 The line in Figure 2 also demonstrates
the penalty paid for the rotor bib drag if the drag of the
fuselage aloi.e is reduced by 50% without a proportionate
reduction in rotor hub drag. It is apparent from Figure 2
that every effort should be expended in reducing the drag
contribution of the rotor hub and that it is imperative that
the drag of the hub be accurately predicted.
The hub drag data presented herein reprEo it the data
supporting the major conclusions drawn. 4The results of the
hub drag data review are identified in greatr detail in
References 1 and 2. The data identified by circle symbols in
the figures represent cata drawn from internal Sikorsky Air-
craft and United Technologies Research Center reports. For
the purpose of clarity and since most of the reports are not
r -nerally available, the individual iata points are not
iaentified by a reference; however, the bibliography includes
the titles and authors of the reports from which the data
were obtained.

Hub Frontal Area

The rotor hub swept frontal area is the most significant
parameter affecting the hub drag. Use of the term frontal
ROTORCRAFT PARASITE DRAG; Special Report Presented to the
31st Annual National Forum by the Ad Hoc Committee on
Rotorcraft Drag, American Helicopter Society, Washington,
D. C., May 14-15, 1975.
2 Sheehy, Thomas W., A GENERAL REVIEW OF HELICOPTER ROTOR
HUB DRAG DATA; Sikorsky Pircraft, SER-50890, September
23, 1974.

10

WAY
up
area related to the rotor hub refers to the "swept" frontal
area which represents the total projected frontal area of a
rotating rotor hub. Figure 3 shows the trend of rotor hub
drag with hub swept frontal area for a range of unfaired rotor
hubs. Vie rotor hub drag (fil) represents only the drag of the
hub itseAf and does not include interference effects. The
data sh-own in Figure 3 indicate that approximately 1 square
foot of dral can be saved for each squate foot reduction in
frontal ate&. It should he pointed out that the scatter in
this figurcý and in other figures concerned with hub frontal
area ran be partially attributed to errors in estimating the
value of hub frontal area. Thia parameter was siLply not
identified in some reports, and frontal areas weze measured
from sketches or photographs.
The effect of including interference drag associated with the
rotor hub is demonstrated in Figure 4, which shows the varia-
tion in rotor hub incremental drag with frontal area. The
rotor hub incremental drag ('rj) represents the difference
in drag of the helicopter configuration with the hub and the
configuration without the hub, and consequently includes tCe
interference drag.
Although no consistent variation with hub frontal area is
apparent, there is a general increase in incremental hub drag
with increaaing frontal area. The curve in Figure 3 has been
duplicated in Figure 4 to demonstrate the potentially large
differences between hub drag (fil) and rotor hub incremezi.tal
drag (TH). The values obtained from the hub drag curve have
also been increased by 25% in Figure 4 to simulate a 25% in-
crease in the dynamic pressure such as might be encountered
at the hub location on a fuselage/pylon configuration. It is
apparent that not even a 25% increase in the local dynamic
pressure can account for the difference in rotor hub f 1 ! and
fH.
The scatter in the incremental hub drag values and the large
differences between flI and ?I are indicative of the magnitude
of the hub interference drag and imply that the interference
drag is dependent on the individual fuselage/pylon configura-
tion tested.

Rotor Hub Fairings

Several types of rotor hub fairings have been us-ed in attempts
to reduce the rotor hcb incremental drag. The general cate-
gories into which these fairings can be divided are shown in
Figure 5. The "beanie" fairing does not enclose the hub but
merely sits on top. This type of hub has not been demon-
strated to yield any significant drag reduction, but it has been
used with some success to alter the flow separation process
such that vibration due to Che hub wake is reduced. The

11
ellipsoid fairing is deam±ned to fully enclose the rotor hub
in an effo:t to make the hub configuration a more streamlined
aerodynamic shape.

The ellipsoid fairing rotates with the blades arn is normally

designed to tilt with the blade motions. Because of this
rotational and tilting motion, this type of fairing is some-
times referred to as a *floating" fairing. Since the hub
fairing fl~cts, a greater hub shaft length is normally required
to provide the proper clearance between the fairing and the
pylon. In some cases shaft fairings have been used to enclose
the extended shaft, and boundary layer control with blowing on
the sides of the nhaft fairing has successfully reduced the
hub incremental drag. The rigid fairing shown in Figure 5
also rotates with the hub, but is not designedi to tilt with
the blade motions. The blade hinges are enclosed by rigid
bearing type seals or flexible cuffs which allow blade motion.
The variation of faired hub incremental drag coefficient wit.
thickness-to-diameter ratio is shown in Figure 6. A large
amount of scatter in drag coefficient is evident in this
figure for ellipsoidal type fairing3, indicating that the
interference effects associated with this type of fairing are
quite large. Most of the data found for thiu type of fairing
were for a t/d s .3. This thickness appears to be the
minimum required to enclose current articulated hubs.

The data shown in Figure 6 fox rigid f3irings show essentially

no variation in hub drag coefficient with thickness-to-diam-
eter ratio, which implies that the interference effects for
this type of fairing are much less severe than in the case of
the ellipsoidal fairing. Because of the limited amount of
data for this type of hub fairing, the implication should not
be considered conclusive.
Hub/Pylon Clearance
Figure 7 demonstrates the variation of the hub/pylon inter-
ference drag as hub/pylon separation distance is changed. As
the hub/pylon separation distance is increased, the hub
interference effects on the pylon are reduced. In addition,
more of the hub itself is removed from the region of potentially
large increases in local dynamic pressures caused by the fuse-
lage/pylon configuration. The separation distance required to
remove the hub from the region of increased dynamic pressures
is dependent on the individual fuselage/pylon geometry involved.

Unfortunately, although the interference effects of the hub on

the pylon are reduced by increasing the hub/pylon separation,
the drag of the additional exposed shaft (and possibly control

12
 rods) area may offset the interference drag reduction. Be- 4
cause of this trade-off between interference drag and drag due
to increajsed frontal area, there is an optimum hub/pylon
separation distance which will yield the minimum incremental
hub drag for a given hub/pylon/fuselage configuration.
Fuselage Angle of Attack
The data reviewed indicate that the incremental hub drag of
faired or unfaired hubs is not significantly affected by
changes in the fuselage angle of attack over a relatively wide
range of body attituder. This is demonstrated in Figure 8,
which represents only a part of the data supporting this con-
clusion. The reason the hub incremental drag is not affected
by body attitude appears to be that the presence of the fuse-
lage/pylon configuration tends to suppress changes in the flow
conditions, such as local dynamic piessure and flow direction
at the hub location, due to a change in body attitude. It is
interesting to note that this is generally true of test con-
figurations not incorporating a full fuselage simulation al-
though the angle-of-attack range for which this holds is some-
what reduced.

Hub Rotation
The effect of rotating the hub on the hub incremental drag is
shown in Figure 9. Several tests have shown that rotational
effects on unfaired rotor hub incremental drag are negligible.
Wind tunnel tests conducted by Sikorsky also indicate that
blade azimuth position for nonrotating hubs does not signifi-
cantly affect the hub incremental drag. Both of these con-
clusions are based on tests of rotor hubs having four blades
or more. However, for two- or three-bladed hub configurations,
;.t is recommended that tests be conducted with the hub
rotating or with the blades at the 00, 900, 1800 and 2700
azimuth positions.
The data from Reference 3 shown in Figure 9 indicates that the
incremental hub drag increases when the hub is rotated. The
test results from Reference 3 shown were not consistent over
the range of Mc-:h numbers tested, and other tests (such as that
presented in Figure 9) showed little -ariation in hub incre-
mental drag as the hub rotation incraased. Because of the
discrepancies between different test data, it should not be
assumed that rotation does not affect the hub incremental
drag of faired hubs.
. Linville, J. C., AN EXPERIMEITTAL INVESTIGATION OF HIGH-
SPEED ROTORCRAFT DRAG,; Sikorsky Aircraft; USAAMRDL Technical
Repurt 71-46, Eustis Directorate, U. S. Army Air Mobility
R & D Laboratory, Ft. ustis, Virginia, February, 1972,
,•AD740771.
4

13
i!
4
 Mach Number
Because the helicopter has traditionally been designed for low
speeds, very little data is available on the effects of Mach
number on rotor hub drag. An exception is the data presented
in Reference 3, which tested a proposed high-speed transport
helicopter configuration over a range of Mach numbers frn. .2
to .6. This test represents a thorough investigaticn of the
effects of Mach number on an unfaired hub, a hub with a rigid
fairing, and an ellipsoidal fairing with and without boundary
layer control (BLC) by tangential blowing. The test results
from this reference, presented in Figure 10, indicate that the
drag of the unfaired hub and the ellipsoidal fairing using
BLC are not significantly affected by Mach numbers between .2
and .4. The incremental drag of the ellipsoidal fairing and
the rigid fairing increases with increasing Mach number over
the range tested. This can probably be attributed to extreme-
ly high local Mach numbers occurring around the bluff fuiring
shape and probably eventually to local shocks. In any case,
the large increases in incremental drag for the hub configura-
tions representing practical hub configurations (i.e., the
unfaired, rigid faired, or ellipsoidal faired hub with BLC)
occur at M > .4, which is not applicable to pure helicopter
configurations, but may be relevant for compound heliccoters.
Scale Effects/Reynolds Number
A large amount of test data has been obtained on the effects
of Reynolds number and on scale effects for streamlined shapes.
Consequently, the scale corrections for test data on these
shapes is relatively well understood. Unfortunately, this is
not the case for bluff bodies and for nonaerodynamic shapes
representative of many helicopter cottponents and in particular
for helicopter rotor hubs.
Results frcm Sikorsky Aircraft tunnel tests indicate that
small-scale tests generally underpredict the drag increments
due to unfaired rotor hubs. However, for faired rotor hubs,
representative hub drag increments can generally be obtained
from small-scale tests. This is illustrated in Figure 11,
which presents test results from full-scale and 1/6-scale
tests of a configuration consisting of a simulated fuselage
upper surface, a pylon, and a faired and an unfaired rotor hub.

14

/
Test data for helicopter configurat.ions indicalte that for the
basic fuselage shape, reasorably small-scale (Reynolds number
>1 million/foot) tests yield accurate drag measu.:.mexats as
discussed in References 4 and 5. The data -resented in these
references did not include comparisons of the configurations
with rotor hubs, however.
Basically, two factors influence the validity of small-scale
test data. The proper flow conditions must be modeled as
closely an possible and the model tested should accurately
represent the geometric characteristics of the actual con-
figuration. The fuselage and pylon region of a helicopter
usually presents no difficulties in this respect provided +he
scale is large enough to obtain Reynolds numbers above sub-
critical for the configuration.
The drag of small-scale rotor hubs appears to fc llow the
basic hub drag trends in Figure 3, which includes some small-
scale data, provided the a'ub geometric properties are
accurately modeled. Recent tests by Sikorsky showed that a
crude geometric model of a rotor hub resulted in only 75% of
the drag measured on an accurate geometric model. It can be
concluded from the data that a true geometric model is a
necessity if an accurate drag estimate is to be obtained.
As far as Reynolds number is concerned, usually a value
sufficient to yield adequate fuselage drag modeling is
sufficient to insure an accurate hub drag. For a rotating hub
the turbulence level is probably adequate to alleviate sub-
critical flow on the small components such as pushrods even
in very small scale tests.
Aerodynamic Sealing
The necessity of good aerodynamic seals in the hub region
depends on the particular hub configuration. Test data
indicate that the ellipsoidal type of fairing must be well
sealed at the juncture of the fairing and the pylon to achieve
any potential drag reduction. On the other hand, the avail-
able data on rigid type fairings indicate that sealing in the
pylon/fairing juncture region is not particularly required.
For unfaired hubs, the pylon cutout (i.e., the opening in the
SSweet, G. E., Julian, L., and Jenkins, J. L., WIND TU14NEL
INVESTIGATION OF THE DRAG AND STATIC STABILITY CHARACTER-
ISTICS OF FOUR HELICOPTER FUSELAGE MODELS, NASA TN D-1363,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, July 1962.

5 Biggers, J. C., McCloud, J. L., III, and Patterakis, P.,

WIND TUNNEL TESTS OF TWO FULL SCALE HELICOPTER FUSELAGES,
NASA TN-1548, National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
October 1962.

15

/ .
 pylon required for the rotor shaft and controls) can cause
additional drag depending primarily on the shape of the "lip"
on the trailing edge of the cutout. Hoerner 6 presents data
on low drag shapes of holes in surfaces applicable to the
pylon cutout.
As might be expected, the data on both ellipsoidal type
fairings and rigid fairings demonstrated that the openings in
the fairings for the blades should be scaled. This may
present some difficulty for certain types of hubs because the
cutout seals must be moveable or flexible to allow blade
movement, but every effort should be made to seal this region.
Pylon Shape
Generally, the shape of the main rotor pylon has a strong
influence on the incremental hub drag. The pylon influence
manifests itself in two ways. First, the presence of the
pylon (and the fuselage) alters both the local velocity
magnitude and tie direction in the hub region. The local flow
direction will, of course, be parallel to the local surface;
however, the magnitude of the velocity can be considerably
higher than the freestream velocity with consequent increases
in the local dynamic pressure. For many pylon configurations,
the increase in local dynamic pr-.ssure can be the predominant
factor in determining the interference between the pylon and
the hub. For instance, hub incremental drag calculations
based on frontal area and accounting for the increased local
q were reported in Reference 7 to account for the difference
between the hub drag alone and the measured hub incremental
drag for unfaired hubs. Accounting for the local q failed to
account for the drag differences for the faired hubs tested,
however.
The second contribution is through the interference drag. The
flow about the pylon c&n be significantly changed by the
presence of the hub. Assuming that the flow is not initially
separated on the aft pylon, the addition of the rotor hub will
almost certainly induce separation of the flow over the aft
pylon to some extent, thereby increasing its base drag. For
some fuselage/pylon configurations, the effects of the hub
may extend even further -.o influence the aft fuselage region.
Unfortunately, no systematic test data was found which
V Hoerner, Dr. - Ing S. F., FLUID-DYNAMIC DRWG, Second
Edition, Bricktown, New Jersey, Hoerner Fluid Dynamics,
1965.
7 Jenkins, J. L., Winston, M. M., A WIND TUNNEL INVESTIGATION
OF THE LONGITUDINAL AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF TwO FULL
SCALE HELICOPTER FUSELAGE MODELS WITH APPENDAGES, NASA
TN-1364, National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
July 1962.

16

/ lI,
quantified the extent to which the hub interference affected

the drag of the fuselage itself (i.e., what percentage of the

interference drag acts on the pylon and fuselage respectively).
Although many hub drag tests are conducted using a pylon
configuration with only a sinzwlated fuselage upper surface,
it is felt by the authors that the validity of this approach
should be substantiated by a systematic test program.
Generally speaking, a clean aerodynamic pylon design should
yield a shape which will yield small hub/pylon interference
drag. However, even clean pjylon shapes can produce high local
velocities in thc hub region. Although not directly applicable
to hub incremental drag, the trends of pylon drag coefficient
with pylon length-to-height ratio are shown in Figure 12.
There is a significant variation in pylon drag coefficient for
a constant 1/h which can be attributed to differences in the
pylon nose shapes and the lengthwise position of maximum height
as well as differences in interference drag associated with the
individual configurations. Reference 8 presents the results
of a rather detailed investigation of canopy configurations
representative of pylon shapes. These data are presented
merely to demonstrate that generally the pylon length-to-height
ratio (comparable to fineness ratio) should be as large as is
practical. Analytical studies, which will be discussed later
in this report, indicate that this criterion also yields
relatively low supervelocities along the pylon and consequently
reduced pylon/hub interference.

8 Robinson, R. G., Delano, J. H., AN INVESTIGATION OF THE

DRAG OF WINDSHIELDS IN THE 8 FOOT HIGH SPEED WIND TUINNEL,
NACA Report 730, National Advisory Committee for
Aeronautics, 1944.

17

17
 HUB DRAG PREDICTION 11ETIIOD

The helicopter rotor hub operates in a region of confused flow

with strong viscous interactions and unsteady local velocitie3.
As a consequence of the complexity of the aerodynamic flow in
this region, a purely analytical approach to determine the
rotor hub drag and its associated intt-,fcrence drag is not
only difficult, but is probably impossible considering the
current state of the art. For this reason, an analytical
method for calculating the flow field about arbitrary con-
figurations has been combined with empirical data identified
in the hub drag data review in an effort to predict the
incremental drag of faired and unfairod rotor hubs. The
method incorporates the primary factors identified as having
controlling influence on the rotor hub incremental drag.

METHOD DEVELOPMENT
Unfaired Hubs
The primary factor influencing the incremental drag of unfaired
hubs is the swept frontal area. The trending equation for the
curve shown in Figure 3 nondimensionalized by hub swept frontal
area is
Ap -. 00057A
2 1
CDH .582 + .0349
CDH p

The CDH obtained from Equation (1) represents the drag of the
hub in free flow and does not include the various interference
effects associated with a hub/pylon combination.
The effect of an increase in the local dynamic pressure in the
hub region is relatively straightforward. If one considers a
pylon/fuselage configuration as shown in Figure 13, the flow
velocity to which the hub is subjected differs from the free-
stream velocity. Since the drag coefficient given by Equation
(1) is based on free-stream dynamic pressure acting on the
hub, CDH must be corrected to account for the local dynamic
pressure. The extent of accelerated or decelerated flow in the
hub region is dependent on the particular configuration in-
volved. However, it is possible that sections of the hub may
be outside the region of influence associated with the pylon/
fuselage induced velocities. To account for that portion of
the hub which may be considered outside of this region of
influence, the ratio of pylon width to hub diameter is used
as a generalizing parameter. The effective drag coefficient
of the rotor hub is then

18
 CDI - C• (1 - K2 ) + CDII (1- CPZ) K2 (2)

where 2 ylon width (maximum value = 1.)

where.K 2 hub diameter

and CZ is the local pressure coefficient at the hub location.

Equation (2) assumes that the shaft height is insufficient to
extend the hub itself vertically outside of the local increased
velocity region. For certain hub configurations, this
assumption may not be valid (methods to determine the validity
of this assumption wil. be discussed in a later section).
To determine the drag of a hub configuration for which the
shaft height can be considered sufficient to remove the hub
itself from the increased dynamic pressure region, the shaft
and hub frontal areas are considered separately. The drag of
the shaft, in this ins* ance, is given by

CDs = AS (1 (3)
AS + A+ t. CDs (1 - K3) + CDs K3 (-Cpz) 3

where K3 = the ratio of pylon width to shaft height (M3_< 1)

CDS = the two-dimensional drag coefficient for the
shaft in free flow determined empirically.
Values for CDU for most shaft configurations can
be found in tie literature. Reference 6 is a
useful source.
/he equivalent drag coefficient for the hub and shaft combina-
tion not including the interference drag due to the rotor hub
or the shaft is then

CDH = CDH + CDs

Ap + As

Having determined the effective drag coefficient of the hub,

the interference drag must be del-. rmined for the particular
hub/pylon configuration. The magnitude of the interference
drag is dependent on the individual pylon/fuselage shape and
the location of the rotor hub on the pylon. The method used
to evaluate the interference drag is similar to that given in
Reference 6 for determining the effects of adding a plate or
disc to a streamlined body.

19

\/

•J/
 S~I
As the flow moves around the pylon and fueolage, it accelerates,
causing lcal regions of reduced presture. Following these
regions of low pressure (higher v'.1ocity), the flow deceler-
ates, resulting in a rise in pressure. With such an unfavor-
able pressure gradient the tendency for the boundary layer to
separate from the surface is increased. This susceptability
to flow separation is heightened by the presence of any
disturbance generated by an obstruction such as the rotor hub
or shaft. Consequently, the interference drag can be
evaluated if the strength of the flow disturbance is known and
the stability of the flow on the pylon is gauged from the
pressure gradients on the pylon. A function has been identi-
fied which relates the interference drag to the strength of
the flow disturbance generated by the hub or shaft and the
general flow stability on the pylon. This function is ex-
pressed as
ACDH - K1 (ACpz) ( t/A z) CDa (5)
where Kl - an empirical constant equal to .2
a CpZ - the potential flow pressure differential
(Cpt - Cpz) between the pressure coefficient
at the end of the pylon and the pressure co-
efficient at the location at which the hub is
placed (see Figure 13).
The method of determining CpZ and Cpt will be discussed in a
later section.
CDa in Equation (5) represents the drag coefficient of the
body creating the disturbance. If the shaft height is not
sufficient to remove the hub from the region of increased
"velocity caused by the pylon/fuselage configuration, then
CDa " CDH However, if the shaft height is sufficient, then
the shaft can be consi dered the component creating the dis-
turbance and CDa - CDS.
The relationship given by Equation (5) indicates that as AZ
decreases (i.e., the hub is moved toward the end of the pylon),
the interference drag increases. This is as would be expected
since the boundary layer on the pylon would become more sus-
ceptible to flow separation for a given ACpz due to the
increased boundary layer thickness. The data in Reference 6
indicates that the relationship given by Equation (5) will net
be adequate for hub locations near the end of the pylon (i.e.,
small AZ). This is considered to be irrelevant for helicopter
rotor hub/pylon configurations since this would imply a rear-
ward tilting shaft if the hub were parallel with the local
surface.

20
P*
lip oiI, II III I1101 s I .E

Equation (5) also shows that as the pressure differential ACpz

increases, the interference drag will increase. As stated
previously, the pressure gradient is indicative of the flow
stability. If a strong adverse pressure gradient exists on
the configuration without the hub, then the flow will be more
susceptible to separation for a given flow disturbance than
if the pressure gradient were small. The pressure gradient
can be an indicator not only of the flow stability, but also
of the effectiveness of the pylon/fuselage shape. For
instance, a strong adverse pressure gradient would indicate
that the pylon aft closure is quite sharp and consequently,
a loss in pressure recovery due to a flow separation would
significantly increase the base pressure drag.
Accounting for the local velocity increases in the hub region
and using the relationship for interference drag given in
Equation (5), the total incremental drag coefficient for the
rotor hub is given by

C'DH = CD1I1 +. LCD (6)

Ellipsoidal Faired Hubs

Although the ellipsoidal fairing is a much more aerodynamic
shape than the unfaired hub, the combination of a hub fairing,
shaft fairing, pylon and fuselage shown in Figure 14, repre-
sents a configuration which taxes the capabilities of even the
most sophisticated aerodynamic analyses. The interference
effects associated with this type of configuration are quite
large and more complex than those associated with an unfaired
hub. Consequently, the approach used to predict the incre-
mental drag of ellipsoidal faired hubs combines analytical
techniques with empirical relations and is somewhat similar
to the method for unfaired hubs. The method is divided into
three major parts: the drag force acting on the hub fairing,
the drag of the shaft or shaft fairing, if applicable, and the
associated interference drag of the components.
The ellipsoidal fairing alone is amenable to the same poten-
tial flow aerodynamic technique as the fuselage/pylon con-
figuration, which will be discussed later. This technique
allows the potential pressure distribution and suzface
velocities over the surface of the fairing to be determined
analytically. This information combined with the local
velocities at the location on the pylon at which the hub is
located allows the superposition of the local velocities on the
fairing surface for the complete configuration. The surface
pressure test data for faired hubs with blade shanks and a full
pylon simulation are rather limited, but the available data
indicates that the presence of the pylon, rotor shaft and

21
 particularly blade shanks induce almost total separation on
the fairing afterbody. Based on this, the base drag of the
fairing accounting for the increased velocity due to the
pylon/fuselage is given by
CDFB - (l - CpZ) CpF - (CpC + Cpz) (7)

where CPF - an equivalent forebody pressure coefficient

(defined in the next section) which is indicative
of the forebody suction force
CpC - the crest point pressure coefficient on the
fairing alone (Figure 14)

This relaticnship assumes that the pressure in the base

region of the fairiig is equal to the pressure at the crest
of the fairing with the induced velocity due to the pylon/
fuselage superimposed. The absence of blade shanks on the
fairing appears to allow some pressure recovery on the aft
portion of the fairing, making the assume,! base pressure
invalid; however, the requirement for blade shanks makes this
discrepancy rather academic.
Since the fairing may have a significant amount of surface
area, the drag due to surface skin friction should be included
in the total drag. Only the surface skin friction increment
acting on the forebody of the fairing is applied vince the
afterbody flow is assumed separated. The skin friction drag
increment is given by

CDSF - Cf (1 - Cpz) (Aw/ 2 AF) (8)

where Cf - the skin friction coefficient

Aw - the vwetted area of the fairing
AF - projected frontal area of fairing
For standard unfaired configurations, there is little
influence of the hub on the blade shank drag. For the
ellipsoidal faired hubs, however, it is more appropriate
t, include in the fairing drag the drag of any sections of
the blade shanks which operate in the region of influence of
the increased velocities due to the presence of the fairing.
For many configurations, the drag of these blade shank sections
can be considered negligible. However, for a configuration
with a significant area of shanks exposed, a drag increment
must be included for the shanks. This drag increment is given
by

CDBS - 2 CDBS (ABS/AF) - Cps) (9

22

I
 I
where Cps - the local pressure coefficient at the 900 and
2700 aziruth position on the hub
CDBS = an empirical drag coefficient determined for the
particular shank configuration
If a shaft or shaft fairing is used in conjunction with the
ellipsoidal fairing, then an additional drag increment must
be included to account for this component. This incremant
is given by
ClS = CDs ( 1 - (CpZ + Cpc)/2) (ASiAr) (10)

where again CDS = an enpirical drag coefficient for the

particular shaft or shaft fairing
The shaft drag is corrected for a local velocity increase
based on an average of the velocity at the crest of the fair-
ing and the velocity at the hub location on the pylon without
the shaft or hub.
The magnitude of the interference drag associated with an
ellipsoidal faired hub is determined in the same manner as for
an unfaired hub. This drag increment is given by Equation
(5). For a faired hub then
CDF = K1 (&Cpz) ( /AZ) CDa (11)

where again, if a shaft or shaft fairing is used, CDa is equal

to CDs , and if a shaft is not applicable, then
D
CDa = CDFB + CDSF + CDBS

Consequently, the total incremental drag for an ellipsoidal

faired hub is
I I
CDF CDFB + CDSF + CDBS + CDS + CDF (12)

Rigid Fairing

The rigid fairii.j represents an aerodi'pamic shape more similar

to an unfaired hub than to an ellipsoidal faired hub. The
method of prediUting the incremental drag of a rigid fairing
is, therefore, very similar to that used for the unffaired hub.
Figure 15 shows that the shape of the basic rigid fairing (i.e.,
without the blade cuffs) is similar to a circular "can" on
the surface. Data presented in Reference 6 on the drag of
surface imperfections (although much of the data is presented

23
 li . . . -ý t.. 7 V

for subcritical flow) Lidicates that a realistic drag co- .

efficient for a basic rigid fairing shape is about .38. The

drag increment for the basic rigid fairing is given by
CDF = CDF (1- CpZ) (13)

where CDF = .38.

This expression assumes that the entire basic fairing is
subjected to the increased velocity field at the hub location.
The value of CDF used appears to be valid for thickness-to-
diameter ratios (t/d) less than .6, but for %./d >.6 or for
fairing shapes significantly different from that shown, the
value of CDF used should be reevaluated.
The blade cuffs associated with a rigid fairing usually repre-
sent a significant portion of the exposed area and consequently
must be in--luded as a drag increment. The drag of the blade
cuffs must also be corrected for the local q. Again the
ratio of pylon width to hub diameter is used as a general
parameter to account for this effect, and the resulting ex-
pression for the blade cuff drag increment is
,(1K 2) + C 2 ABS1( 1 4 )
-

CDBS (CDBS CDBS( pz) K2)

where CDBS = an empirical drag coefficient based on the

shape of the blade cuff.

The interference drag is given by Equation (11) using

I I
CDa = CDF + CDBS

The total incremental drag of the rigid fairing is then

I I
DF = CDF + CDDS + ACDF (15)

24
 AERODYNAMIC ANALYSIS TECIIQIOUE

Determining Local Surface Pressures

The local pressure coefficients required in the hub drag
prediction methods are determined analytically by use of a
three-dimensional aerodynamic technique developed at Sikorsky
Aircraft and described in Reference 9. This technique cal-
culates the incomapressible, inviscid flow field on and about
the surface of arbitrary lifting or nonlifting bodies in
steady flow. The technique uses a combination of the classi-
cal approach for nonlifting bodies developed by Hess and
SmithlO, 11 and a vortex lattice method for lifting sections
of the body (i.e., wings, tail surfaces, etc.) developed by
Rubbert and Saarisl-l combined with a modified .1lulthopp lifting
surface analysis. 13

The technique uses a finite element type of approach to solve

for the flow about the body. The surface of the configura-
tion of interest (including the lifting section if applicable)
is described by a finite number of approximately flat panels
as shown in Figure 16. A constant strength source of uniform
density is distributed over the surface of each panel and,
in addition, lifting sections of the body are modeled by a
vortex lattice distribution on the mean camber line. The
suriz", singularity distribution and the vorticity distribu-
tion are then computed as a solution to a set of integral
Y Sheehy, Thomas W., A SIMPLIFIED APPROACH TO G1iJERALIZED
HELICOPTER CONFIGURATION MODELING AND THE PREDICTION OF
FUSELAGE SURFACE PRESSURES, presented at the American
Helicopter Society Symposium on Helicopter Aerodynamic
Efficiency, Hartford, Connecticut, March 1975.
10 Hess, J. L. and Smith, A.M.O., CALCULATION OF POTENTIAL
FLOW ABOUT ARBITRARY BODIES, Progress in Acronautical
Sciences, Vol. 8, The Permagon Press, 1967.
11 Hess, J. L. and Smith, A.M.O., CALCULATION OF 11ON-LIFTING
POTENTIAL FLOW ABOUT ARBITRARY THREE-DIMIENSIONAL BODIES,
Journal of Ship Research, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1964.
12 Pubbert, P. E., Saaris, G. R., et al., A CEIERAL MEMIOD
FOR DETERW¶INING THE AERODYNAV.IC CHARACTERISTICS OF FAN-
IN-WING CONFIGURATIONS, Boeing Aircraft; USAAVLABS
Technical Report 67-61A, Vol. 1, U. S. Army Aviation
Materiel Laboratories, Ft. Eustis, Virginia, December
1967.
13 Lamar, J. E., A MODIFIED MULTHOPP APPROACH FOR PREDICTING
LIFTING PRESSURES AND CAMBER SHAPE FOR COMPOSITE PLANFORMS
IN SUBSONIC FLOW, NASA TN D04427, National Aeronautics
"and Space Administration, July, 1968.

25
equations satisfying the known flow conditions at the trailing
edge of lifting sections and the requirement that there must
be no flow normal to the surface of the body unless fluid
ejection or suction hc.s boon specified by the user. Once the
singularity strengths have been determined, the flow direction
and magnitude can be computed at the surface control points
and at any arbitrary points located off the body. The proce-
dures for dctermiaiing the singularity strengths are described
in detail in References 10 - 12, and a more detailed description
of the technique can be found in Reference 9. The use of the
three-dimensional aerodynamic analysis computer program
(designated Y179L) is described in Appendix B.
The aerodynamic technique is quite general in application.
The bodies accatable for solution are not required to be
slender, can be lifting or nonlifting, and the body itself
or the flow conditions can be nonsymmetric (i.e., yawed flow).
In addition, the aerodynamic flow field about multiple bodies
can be computed to determine the mutual body interference.
The numerical algorithm used accepts the surface panel de-
scription3 au individual entitities, and, consequently, the
panels may be input in random order and parv ls may be concen-
trated in regions of primary interest which increases the
accuracy of the solution in those regions. This feature is
demonstrated in Figure 16 where the pylon region has been
modeled more accurately than the fuselage surface.

Tha number if bodies and the complexity of the configurations

acceptable are lizited only by the size of the computing
facility available and the inherent assumptions of incompress-
ible, inviscid, steady potential flow. As a consequence of
these assumptions, computed results in or very near regions of
separated flow are not meaningful. Calculated results nerr
sharp corners will also be inaccurate.
By use of the aerodynamic technique, the local velocities and,
therefore, the local pressures can be determined at the
positions required in the hub drag predicticn method described.
To determine the values of CpZ and Cpt the pylon/fuselage
configur-.tion of interest is modeled and an aerodynamic ana-
lysis is performad. The resulting output of the surface
pressures and velocities on the surface can then be inter-
polated (if necessary) to obtain the pressures at the required
locations. If desired, the velocities at selected off-body
points in the hub region may also be determined to identify
the region of influence of increased velocities for the
particular configuration. The pylon width to hub diameter
retio used in Equation (2) appeared adequate in this study, and
the precise identiftcation of the width of the region of
influence was not deemed necessary.

26
The required pressures for predicting the drag of an ellip-I
soidal hub fairing are determined in the same manner as the
values of Cp 7 and Cpl. The ellipsoidal fairing of interest
is geometrically modeled and an analysis performed. The
values of CpC and Cps are obtained directly from the output.
The determination of the equivalent forebody pressuze (CPF) is
not quite as straightforward. Since the fairing is
modeled by a finito number of surface panels, the forebody
of the fairing has an incremental area for each panel on wh4ch
the local pressure is assumed equal to the calculated pressure
for that panel. The resultant equivalent pressure coefficient
(Cpj) acuing on the forebody of the fairing in the drag direc-
tion can then be obtained by numerically integrating these
incremental forces and CpF is given by
11
CPF W 1- 7 Cpi ADi (16)
AF
i- 1
where N - the nunber of panels describing the fairing
forebody (i.e., to the point of maximum
thickness)
Cpi - the local Cp on each panel
ADi - the component of each panel area perpendicular
to the drag direction
The aerodynamic program automatically pei forms the summation
of nondimensionalized forces in the X, Y and Z directions as
well as calculating the moments about each axis. The summa-
tion of forces about the entire body in potential flow without
vorticity, assuming the body description is exact, will be
zero although the distribution of incremental forces will
yield moments whose accuracy depend on the extent of the
viscous flow effects on the particvlar configuration. Conse-
quently, although the potential flow program will inaccurately
predict total pressure recovery on the fairing afterbody, the
CpF determined by the above procedure will be accurate since
the forebody flow is well represented by potential flow.

Geometric Modeling
Although the potential flow solution method is basically the
same for any arbitrary shape, properly modeling the configura-
tion poses a new problem for each body of interest. The
generation of a proper model would normally be a time-consuming
and tedious task for four principal reasons: the numLer of
panels required to model most shapes is large, regions of high
curvature require wore panels than those of low curvature,
panel size should vary smoothly from one adjacent panel to
another, and the total number of panels must be minimized to

27
 fit within computing facility constraints of time and size.
To minimize the manual effort in this area, a computerized
method has been developed at Sikorsky Aircraft to complement
the three-dimensional aerodynamic program. The method
developed simplifies the generation of a suitable model for
an arbitrary shape by reducing both the time required to model
the shape and the amount of effort required of the user in
preparing the input.
The body shape is generated by describing relatively few in-
put cross sections by combinations of various types of simple
curves which are then divided into straigLt line increments
based on specific constraints related to the accuracy of the
straight line approximation to the true curve and the basic
requirements of the aerodynamic analysis technique. The
curvature along the input axis (i.e., the axis on which cross
sections are defined) determines the number of cross sections
which are required. In the nose region where the axial
curvature is normally large, several sections may be required,
whereas in the cabin and tail regions, few input sections are
required and the length of individual panels in these rec.tons
is controlled by requesting intermediate cross sections to be
generated by linear interpolation. Because each surface panel
is described as a separate entity, sections of the body may be
generated independently and the resulting output combined to
form the comrlete body.
A description of the Automated Paneling Technique (APT; Deck
Y179A) can be found in Appendix A. The geometry program (APT)
has been succe3sfully used to model configurations ranging
from simple cylindrical shapes to complex compound helicopters
such as the U. S. Army/11ASA/Sikorsky Rotor Systems Research
Aircraft (RSRA). As compared to traditional method.3, the
geometry modeling technique used demonstrates a significant
reduction in time and effort required to model aircraft
configurations.
The surface presstires calculated by the three-dimensional
potential flow program (Y179L) using shapes generated by APT
have been successfully correlated with test data over a wide
range of fuselage configurations, angles of attack and yaw
attitudes. Several examples of the correlation achieved with
test data are presented in Appendix B, Figures B-3 to B-5.
Both the APT and potential flow program have been demonstrated
to be extremely useful tools in the design and analysis of
rotorcraft configurations.

28
METHOD APPLICATIOIT MID CORRELATION
The hub drag prediction methods described previously require
information about the flow field in the pylon region and about
the ellipsoidal fairing if applicable. Because the drag
prediction method is relatively sensitive to the local flow
velocities in the hub region and the potential pressure
recovery indicated by ACpz, it is recommended that the partic-
ular pylon/fuselage configuration of interest (and the
ellipsoidal fairing, if applicable), be geometrically modeled
and an aerodynamic analysis perfornid to obtain the required
I
informatio.i.
Unfortunately, even with the simplified modeling technique,
this may require more effort than is warranted for a quick
drag estimate, particularly if the fuselage/pylon configuration
has not been finalized. To alleviate this difficulty, several
pylon configurations hav3 been analyzed in conjunction with a
basic fuselage representation as well as several general
ellipsoidal fairing configurations. An example of the geo-
metric model of one pylon configuration on the fuselage under-
body used is shown in Figure 16.
The basic pylon shapes used in the analysis are shown in
Figure 17 and are designated A, B and C. For each pylon shape,
the maximum pylon height-to-length ratio and the axial posi-
tion of maximum height were varied in order to obtain the
matrix of thirty-six general pylon configurations identified
of pylon from the potential
in Table
flow 1. The
program surface
(Y179L) the matrix obtained
for pressures shapes are shown
in Figures 18 to 20.
The ellipsoidal fairing shapes which were analyzed are shown
in Figure 21. The thickness-to-diameter ratios of the fairings 4
vary from .1 to .4. Predicted surface pressures along the
top centerline and the lateral centerline for the fairings are
shown in Figures 22 and 23, respectively.
In application, the user i3 required to identify the various
frontal areas associated with the hub configuration of
interest (i.e., Ap or AF, AS and ABS) as well as the hubi
position, shaft height, and the various emapirical drag
coefficients of individual components as needed. The partic-
ular pylon geometric characteristics such as length, width,
maximum height, and axial position of maximum height must be
kncwn. The values of the local surface pressures must be
determined in one of two ways. If the particular pylon/fuse-
lage or fairing configuration has been modeled and analyzed,
i
then these values are obtainel from the potential flow analysis.
The alternative to this is to identify a pylon or fairing
configuration from the ratrix identified in Table 1 and
Figure 21, respectively, which most closely represents the I
29
I
 t4

u~~u. m. u. -.

0
20 0 0

,,4
0
0

z w

9n 0 I

30

''I
 particular shape of interest. The values of Cpz, Cpt and/or
CPc, Cps can then be obtained from Figures 18 to 20 and
Figures 22 and 23. Interpolation may be required to obtain the
required pressure coefficients if the maximuum height and
position of maximum height or fairing thickness to diameter
ratio of the particular shape do not correspond to any of the
configurations available. Values of CPF for the particular
fairings shown in Figure 21 can be obtained from Figure 24.
A generalized hub drag prediction computer program (Y179Z) has
been developed which accepts the required geometric
characteristics of the pylon, hub and the shaft and blade
shanks (if applicable), along with the required empirical drag
coefficients. The predicted aerodynamic data for the pylon
matrix and the ellipsoidal fairings have been incorporated in
the program in order that an estimated pylon surface pressuze
distribution for an arbitrary pylon shape, and Cpc and Cps for
an arbitrary ellipsoidal fairing can be computed if required
in the hub drag prediction. The hub type is specified and
the appropriate equations (i.e., unfaired, ellipsoidal fairings,
rigid fairing) are solved to identify the drag of the hub
itself, the interference drag, and subsequently, the total
incremental drag of the rotor hub. The use of the hub drag
prediction computer program is described in Appendix C.
The procedure required for predicting the drag of a particular
hub/pylon/fuselage configuration is sur.unarized in the
following steps:
1. Determine Ap or AF and Aw, AS and ABS
2. Determine factors K2 and K3
3. Determine CDS, CDBS and Cf
4. Determine CpZ, Cpj Nnd Cpc, Cps, CpF (if applicable)
using the aerodynamic analysis or values from the
pylon and fairing configuration matrix

5. Use the information in the appropriate drag calcu-

lations outlined for unfaired, ellipsoidal faired
or rigid fairing hub.
The rotor hub drag prediction method has been correlated with
test data for several unfalred and faired hub configurations.
The comparison between predicted hub incremental drag and
measured hub incremental drag for these hub configurations is
shown in Table 2. The predicted drag is within 8% of the
measured drag for all the configurations except for the un-
faired hub test data from Reference 3. The reason for the
larger difference between predicted and measured hub incre-
mental drag is not knain. In any case, a predicted incre-
mental hub drag within 13% of the actual corresponds to only

31

I.
* a 4% error in total aircraft drag of cr)nventional helicopters.
However, for exceptionally clean hel.4copters, an incremental
hub drag error of this size could represent about a 7% error
in aircraft drag.
* Some of the hub configurations identified in Table 2 were
tested with only a pylon and fuselage upper surface repre-
sentation and not a full fuselage component. The predicted
incremental drag coefficient values for these hubs (with the
effect of the fuselage included) are shown in Table 2 also.
The large differences between the drag values with and without
the fuselage present deserve further discussion.
The local pressures and velocities in the hub region are
dependent upon the full configuration. The hub configurations
tested without a fuselage weze tested with a pylon and fuselage
upper surfAce simulation similar to the configuration shown
in Figure 25. The local velocities along the pylon are ex-
pected to be lower for this type of configuration than for a
complete pylon/fuselage shape. Although no test data was
identified during the course of this study which substantiates
this conclusion, the differences in the calculated surface
pressures for a pylon/fuselage comb~ination and the same pylon
with only a simulated fuselage upper surface are shown in
Figure 26. The difference between the pressures is essentially
equal to the surface pressures along the top of the fuselage
body without the pylon or, in essence, the fuselage surface
pressures are superimposed on the pylon surface pressures
except at the end of the pylon where the pressure differences
are small.
The predicted hub incremental drags for the hub configurations
tested with a pylon and fuselage upper surface are based on
the pressure distributions on a pylon/fuselage upper surface
configuration, and good correlation with test data is obtained.
Since good correlation was achieved with the configurati.ons
tested with a full fuzelage component and those without a full
fuselage, provided the appropriate local pressures are used,
it is reasonable to expect that the predicted incremental hub
drags based on the complete pylon/fuselage configurations
shown in Table 2 are accurate.
The differences in the predicted incremental drags with and
without a fuselage component demonstrate that the incremental
drag of ellipsoidal faired hubs is quite sensitive to the fuse-
lage presence and that the drag of rigid fairings, and probably
unfaired hubs, are not nearly so sensitive to the presence of
the fuselage. This tends to further support the earlier con-
clusion that the interference effects associated with ellip-
soidal fairings are much greater than for the other hub
configurations.

32
rr

44)

c. - H C' U E3 . 0 :

F4)o 0 4 S + +. I 4. I
E-4 H I- H0r
b)

Cu 4)3
E-
;4

04

bE N 0 A'0 1 0~ 0 0 0~N H '.O V

@1 H0H91- H H H w.4

43 4.. 41
0. Hd i $4.2
0 0A 0. t- 0
V 0 4 U.- a .- ' 0 - V4 3

C) 4) . 4A~ 0 4 - (fl 4) (( 1 0 N D
V0-a W1 - . H *. o c r. o@
0- H
%D 0H) HD H 0 4 1 4) .

0.. 4 04 I 4,4
0)CO )
0) 4 D0 Q0 4) *
F*z 4. 40 0.-1 H4 "44 rq o
4)
ca@1)
0) 4) f1 4) H H H H 4)P
a. H H H H H bO

E-irz. z z ~~ ~-4)
33)
 HUB FAIRING DESIGN

A rotor hub/pylon configuration representative of current U. S.

Army designs was identified and analyzed during the course of
this study. In addition, a rotor hub fairing designed to
reduce the incremental hub drag was identified and analyzed.
The basic hub/pylon shape is shown in Figure 27.
The basic unfaired hub shown in dashed lines in Figure 27 is
typical of a fully articulated, elastomeric, four-bladed rotor
hub; and the basic pylon configuration is similar to pylon type
"A" identified in Figure 17. This type of rotor hub repre-
sents a relatively low drag configuration because elastomeric
rotor hubs yield lower values of frontal area for a given hub
design requirement. Because of this feature, this type of
hub allows a more compact fairing design, although this fea-
ture may also reduce the potential drag reductions to be
obtained by fairing the hub ror some configurations.
The rigid rotor hub fairing shown in Figure 27 was chosen for
this configuration for several reasons. The low profile
characteristics of this type of helicopter make the floating
characteristics required for ellipsoidal type fairings less
attractive than the rigid fairing characteristics. E llip-
soidal fairings also require a significant amount of flexible
aerodynamic sealing in the pylon/fairing juncture region and
the blade cutout region. Even with proper sealing, the
ellipsoidal type fairing may not yield a net drag reduction
due to the increase in frontal area required and the strong
interference effects. The reduction of the interference
effects is difficult and requires either a redesign of the
pylon/hub region or using boundary layer control which is
impractical because of the mechanical complexity involved.
The rigid fairing shown avoids the mechanical complexities
associated with an ellipsoidal fairing and the boundary layer
control devices. The fairing consists of a rigid nonrotating
base, a rotating fairing component, and flexible blade cuffs
enclosing the shank/hub juncture and the pushrod linkages. A
comparison of the predicted drag of the basic unfaired hub and
the rigid fairing is shown below.
Unfaired Hlub Faired Hub
2 4.667 ft 2
Frontal Area 4.0 ft
2 ft 2
Predicted Incremental Drag 4.4 ft

34
 WIND TUNNEL TEST DEFINITION

A systematic wind tunnel test program which is designed to

further investigate the parameters affecting the contribution
of the rotor hub to the total helicopter drag and to refine
and verify the hub drag prediction method has been identified.
The required wind tunnel test program based on results from
this study is outlined below.
* Models Required:
1. A simulated fuselage upper surface
2. A complete fuselage underbody
3. Eighteen pylon configurations
a. Three pylon types similar to types A, B and C
shown in Figure 18
b. Two maximum heights for each pylon configuration
(hit - .1, .2)
c. Three maximum height positions for each
configuration, preferably at 25, 50 and 75%
of the pylon length
J4. One rotating rotor hub configuration
a. Unfaired hub with component buildup
b. Hub with a rigid fairing as shown in Figure 27
c. Variable shaft height for unfaired hub configura-
tion
5. A representative set of rotor blades (not
necessarily scaled).
Balances Required:
1. Balance for fuselage/pylon configuration
2. Rotor hub balance.

* 35
 Recommended Data:

1. Fuselage/pylon forces and moments

2. Rotor hub forces

3. Flow visualization on fuselage/pylon

a. ('1
b. Tufts
4. Rotor hub wake definition

a. Wake survey
b. Laser velocimeter

5. Surface pressures

a. Pressure taps on fuselage upper and lower

surfaces and along lateral centerline
b. Pressure tops on pylon as shown below

Taps located on surface of pylon for

0 - 00, +200,, +100, +600, +800
Wind Tunnel Required:
1. Test section area should be a minimum of
approximately 250 square feet
2. Test section airspeed should be approximately 200 mph.

36

/
 77 ~~~ ~
1111 ~ 27" ' .1 .,7

Model Scale:
Reynolds number based an hub diameter should be greater
than 1.5 million. This yields a minimum diameter of
approximately .8 feet based on the wind tunnel des-
cribed above. If the scale is based on the configura-
tion shown in Figure 27, the minimum scale is one-sixth,
which yieldsl low tunnel blockage factor of approxi-
mately .17%.l
In light of the results presented in the previous section, the
wind tunnel test program should attempt to verify the validity
of rotor hub drag tests without a full fuselage sinulation.
Even if this approach is dervnstrated to yield lower valur~s
for the hub incremental drag than with a complete fuselage
underbody, this does not preclude the possibility of obtaining
meaningful data provided that the mechanism responsible for
the differences in hub drag magnitude is identified and
understood in greater detail.
Several pylon configurations are proposed for the test programI
to permit study of how the pylon shape itsel~f affects the hub
incremental drag. In addition, a matrix of pylon configura-
tions such as the one proposed will provide a better data base
for the design of low drag pylon configurations. Testing
* selected pylon configurations with the simulated fuselage upper
surface as well as with the comnplete fuselage underbody would
help better identify the interference effects associated with
a pylon/fuselage configuration.
The axial location of the unfaired rotor hub should be variedJ
-for each pylon shape to aid in refining and verifying the hub
drag prediction method. The positions tested should be
* ~located forward of the maximum height position or at theI
maximum height position. The basic hub position should allow
the hub to be rotated, but rotating the hub for the hub
position study is not considered necessary.
A component buildup (i.e., control rods, etc.) should be per-I
formed for the basic hub configuration and a systematic study
of the effects of shaft heivht should be done at the basic
axial hub position (i.e., the position at which the hub balance
is located). It is not considered particularly necessary to
rotate t~he rotor hub for the basic hub position and height
studies, but the hub should be rotated to verify this.
A representative set of rotor blades should be included in j
this study as well. No data were found in the literature
which demonstrate how the rotor blades and the rotor wake may
affect the way in which the presence of the hub interferes with
4A
Pope, A. and Harper, J. J., LOW-SPEED W111D TUNNEL
TESTING, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1966.

37
the pylon/fuselage configuration. One would suspect that the
rotor wake dominates the flow field in the hub/pylon region
and that the mechanism of the interference drag is significant-
ly altered. The surface pressure data and the oil flow studies
will aid in idenlifyin( the rotor wake effects on the pylon/
fuselage region.
The rotor hub has additional undesirable effects on the
helicopter overal, performance other than increasing the
parasite drag. The wakc from the hub can interfere with the
tail surfaces and the tail rotor, causing undesirable handling
qualities and vibration. Reducing the -rag of the rotor hub
should reduce the magnitude of this interference, and properly
designed oylon shapes can alleviate the possibility of this
interference by altering the wake trajectory. For this reason,
a wake survey is reconmended for the faired and unfaired hubs
on the three types of pylons to investigate the potential
reduction in the hub wake interference effects.
Laser velocimeter measurements are also -.aconmended in order
to obtain oif-body velocities both with and without the rotor
wake present. This will not only aid in defining the region
of influence of Uiduced velocities due to the fuselage/pylon
configuration, but also aid in determining the unsteady flow
characteristics associated with the rotor wake effects and the
rotor hub wake.
Although some of the test program characteristics are not
inherently necessary to refine and verify the hub drag pre-
diction method, these features will significantly increase the
understanding of the entire hub/pylon/fuselage flow character-
istics. This will aid in the design of efficient high-speed
rotorcraft. This test program also offers the potential to
provide a data base directly applicable to two cont*acts
recently awarded by the U. S. Army Air Mobility Research and
Development Laboratory, Eustis Directorate, concerning three-
Jimensional aerodynamic analysis techniques in extensive use
to predict flow velocity and direction off the sur-face of the
body. This analytical capability is essential for predicting
flow interference on external stores and identifying potential
body/rotor interference.
The wind tunnel test outlined is rather extensive in scope, and
consequently, the estimated cost of the program is high
($415,000). This cost is comprised of approximately $112,000
for the design and fabrication of the model, $44,000 for the
design and fabrication of the rotor hub (assuming a properly
scaled hub is not available), and $259,000 for the wind
tunnel program and documentation. The cost estimate is based
on the use of existing balance systezr. and rotor blades
compatible with the test outlined.

38
 "CONC LUSIONS
Results of the helicopter rotor hub drag data review indicate
that:
1. The rotor hub swept frontal area is the primary
factor influencing the contribution of the rotor
hub to the total aircraft, drag. Reducing the
frontal area orfers the greatest potential to
reduce the hub drag.
2. Changing fuselage angle of attack does not
sign~ificantly affect the incremental drag of
unfairc~d or faired hubs,
3. The effect of rotation on the incremental drag of
unfat.red hubs, having four or more blades, is
negligible. The data reviewed on the effects of
rotation on faired hubs was inconsistent and
no conclusions were drawn.
4. Increasing the separation distance between the
rotor hub and the pylon can reduce the incremental
drag of the rotor hub only if the drag of the
increased exposed shaft and control rods is less
than the reduction in interference drag caused
by removing the hub from the higher dynamic
pressure region around the pylon and the resultant
smaller flow disturbance on the aft pylon/fuselage
region. This conclusion is based on test data
obtained without the effects of the rotor wake
present. Due to insufficient data, no conclusions
have been drawn concerning the effects of increased
shaft height on the airframe/rotor mutual inter-
ference.
5. Small-scale tests can yield accurate hub drag
values only if the actual rotor hub geometric
properties are properly modeled.
6. Rotor hub fairings offer the potential to yield
signi.ficant hub incremental drag reductions. For
ellipsoidal type fairings, care should be taken
to guarantee that the fairing causes a minimal
increase in frontal area. This is particularly
important if boundary layer control is not used
in conjunction with the fairing.
7.The drag reductions available using rotor hub
fairings are decreased as flight Mach number is
increa ed due probably to local shocks occurring
on the bluff aerodynamic shape of the fairings.

39
 8. The rotor hub and its associated interference
effects contribute 20 to 30% of the total airframe
drag of current helicopters. If the magnitude
of increnental hub drag is not reduced, the laub
could potentially contribute 40 to 60% of the
airframe drag for aerodynamically clean fuselage
configurations.

It has been demonstrated that a semiempirical procedure

using three-dimensional analytical aerodynamic techniques
combined with empirical data can be used to predict the incre-
mental drag of rotor hub configurAtions. The method developed
correlates within +14% with test data for a wide range of hub
configurations, buE is within +8% for most hubs.
A rigid fairing, compatable with a hub/pylon configuration
representative of current designs, has been identified which
should • eld a 371 reduction in hub incremental drag compared
to the unfaired hub configuration, and a wind tunnel test
program has been defined to verify and refine the method
developed.

40
 REFERENCES

1. ROTORCRAFT PARASITE DRAG; Special Report Presented to the

31st Annual National Forum by the Ad Hoc Comnittee on
Rotorcraft Drag, American Helicopter Society, Washington,
D. C., May 14-15, 1975.

2. Sheehy, Thomas W., A GEN•ERAL REVIEW OF HELICOPTER ROTOR

HUB DRAG DATA; Sikorsky Aircraft, SrR-50890, Septerber
23, 1974.
3. Linville, J. C., AN EXPERItIENTAL INVESTIGATION OF HIGH-
SPEED ROTORCRAFT DRAG, Sikorsky Aircraft; USAAMRDL
Technical Report 71-46, Eustis Directorate, U. S. Army
Air Mobility R&D Laboratory, Ft. Eustis, Virginia,
February 1972, AD 740771.

4. Sweet, G. E., Julian, L., and Jenkins, J. L., WIND TUIINNEL

INVESTIGATION OF ,'HE DRAG AND STATIC STABILITY CHARACTER-
ISTICS OF FOUR HELICOPTER FUSELAGE IIODELS, IASA TI D-1363,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, July 1962.

5. Biggers, J. C., McCloud, J. L., III, and Patterakis, P.,

WIND TUNNEL TESTS OF T1O FULL SCALE HELICOPTER FUSELAGES,
-ASA TN-1548, National Aeronautics and Space Administra-
tion, October 1962.

6. HIoerner, Dr. -Ing S. F., FLUID-DYNAtIIC DRAG, Second

Edition, Dricktown, New Jersey, Hoerner Fluid Dynamics,
1965.
7. Jenkins, J. L., Winston, :1. I., A WIND TUNNEL INVESTIGA-
TION OF THE LONGITUDIINAL AERODYNAIMIC CHUARACTERISTICS OF
TWO FULL SCALE HELICOPTER FUSELAGE ,ODELS WITH
APPENDAGES, NAUSA TN-1364, National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, July 1962.

8. Robinson, R. G., Delano, J. B., ANU INVESTIGATION OF THE

DRAG OF WINDSHIELDS IN THE 8 FOOT HIGI SPEED WIND TUINNEL,
NACA Report 730, National Advisory Committee for
Aeronautics, 1944.

9. Sheehy, Thomas W., A SIIMPLIFIED APPROACH TO GENERALIZED

HELICOPTER CONPIGURATION MODELING AND THE PREDICTION
OF FUSELAGE SURFACE PRESSURES, Presented at the Amorican
Helicopter Society Symposium on Helicopter Aerodynamic
Efficiency, Hartford, Connecticut, March 1975.
10. Hess, J. L., and Smith, A.M.O., CALCULATION OF POTENTIAL
FLOW ABOUT ARBITRARY BODIES, Progress in Aeronautical
Sciences, Vol. 8, The Permagon Press, 1967.

41
11. Hess, J. L. anw Smith, A.M.O., CALCULATION OF NON-LIFTING
POTENTIAL FLOW ABOUT ARBITRARY THREE-DIMEW4SIONAL BODIES,
Journal of Ship Research, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1964.

12. Rubbert, P. E., Saaris, G. R., et al., A GENERAL MEETHOD

FOR DETERMININC THE AERODY1NAMIC CIHARACTERISTICS OF FAN-
IN-WING CONFIGURATIONS, Vol. 1 - Theory and Application,
Boeing Aircraft; USAAVLABS Technical Report 67-61A, U. S.
Army Aviation Materiel Laboratories, Ft. Eustis, Virginia,
December 1967, AD667980.

13. Lamar, J. E., A MODIFIED MULTIIOPP APPROACH FOR PREDICTI11G

LIFTINIG PRESSURES AND CAMBER SHAPE FOR CO1POSITE PLAIJFORMS
IN SUBSONIC FLOW, NASA TN D04427, National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, July, 1968.

14. Pope, A. and Harper, J. J., LOW-SPEED WIND TUIUREL

TESTING, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1966.

15. INVESTIGATION OF THREE-DIMENSIONAL FLOW SEPARATION ON

FUSELAGE COOFIGURATIONS, RFQ DAAJ02-75-Q-0119, U. S.
Army Air Mobility Research and Development Laboratories,
Eustis Directorate, Ft. Eustis, Virginia, February 1975.

16. ROTOR WAKE EFFECTS ON HUB/PYLON FLOW SEPARATION, RFQ

DAA.T02-75-Q-0138, U. S. Army Air Mobility Research and
Development Laboratories, Eustis Directorate, Ft. Eustis,
Virginia, February, 1975.
17. Key, C. N. and Wiesner, R., GUIDELINES FOR MINIMIZING
HELICOPTER PARASITE DRAG, American Helicopter Society
Preprint No. 805, May, 1974.

18. Churchill, G. B., and Harrington, R. D., PARASITE DRAG

MEASUREMENTS OF FIVE HELICOPTER ROTOR HUBS, NASA Memo
1-31-59L, February, 1959.

19. Moser, H., FULL SCALE WIND TUNNEL INVESTIGATION OF

HELICOPTER DRAG, American Helicopter Society Journal,
Vol. 6, No. 1, January, 1961, pp. 27-33.

42
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Nozick, H. J., RESULTS OF FULL SCALE ROTOR DRAG TESTS IN

THE UAC 18-FOOT WIND TUNNEL, SER-2525, Sikorsky Aircraft,
May, 1953.

2. Hall, J. B., AN EXPERIMEITAL INVESTIGATION OF HELICOPTER

ROTOR HEAD DRAG CHARACTERISTICS, UAC R-25588-2, United
Aircraft Corporation.

3. Harrington, R. D., REDUCTION OF HELICOPTER PARASITE DRAG,

NACA TN-3234, August, 1954.

4. Grose, R. M., EFFECTS OF PROTUBF'MANCES ON THE DRAG OF

CYLINDERS, UAC R-25784-1, United Aircraft Corporation,
February, 1955.

5. Lanz, H. K., PILOT WIND TUNMEL TESTS OF A 1/4 SCALE

MODEL OF AN S-5G HELICOPTER MAIN ROTOR AID PYLON, UAC-R-
0822-1, United Aircraft Corporation, March, 1956.

6. Wilson, J. C., PILOT WIND TUNNEL TESTS OF SUCTION

BOUNDARY LAYER CONTROL TO A CYLINDFR FOR PYLON AND ROTOR
HEAD DEVELOPMENT, UAC R-1208-1, United Aircraft
Corporation, March, 1958.

7. Lawton, T. D., PILOT WIND TUIRIEL TESTS OF A 1/8 SCALE

MO0DEL OF A SIZ.IJLATED SIKORSKY S-56 HELICOPTER ROTOR HEAD,
UAC R-1234-2, United Aircraft Corporation, February, 1959.
8. Wilson, J. C., PILOT WIND TUNNEL TESTS OF A 1/6 SCALE
MODEL OF THE SIKORSKY S-61 ROTOR HEAD A!D PYLON, UAC
R01234-4, United Aircraft Corporation, Ilarch 16, 1959.

9. Lawton, T. D., EFFECT OF nUB FAIRING ON ROTOR PERFORMAN1CE

IN HOVER, UAC R-1234-3, United Aircraft Corporation,
April, 1959.
10. Harper, T. E., WIND TUNNEL DRAG STUDY OF A FULL-SCALE
ROTOR HEAD AND PYLONI MODEL OF TIHE SIKORSKY IISS-2 HELICOPTER
UAC R-1299-1, United Aircraft Corporation, April, 1959.

11. Olson, J. R., WIND TUNNEL DATA AND ANALYSIS OF FULL SCALE
ROTOR HEAD AND PYLON DRAG INVESTIGATION, SER-61027,
Sikorsky Aircraft, April, 1959.

12. Lawton, T. D., WINiD TUMNEL TESTS OF A 1/6 SCALE MODEL OF

A SIKORSKY S-61 TRANSPORT ROTOR IIFAD AND PYLON, UAC
R-0289, United Aircraft Corporation, May, 1959.

13. Wilson, J. C., WIND TUNNEL TESTS OF MODELS OF ROTOR HEAD

FAIRINGS, UAC R-0495, United Aircraft Corporation,
August, 1959.
43
14. Tanner, W. H., FULL SCALE S-61 ROTOR HEAD - PYLON DRAG AND
WAKE SURVEY INVESTIGATION, Unpublished, Sikorsky,
Septeaber, 1960.
15. Biggers, J. C., McCloud, J. L. III, and Patterakis, P.,
WIND TUNNEL TESTS OF TWO FULL SCALE HELICOPTER FUSELAGES,
NACA TN-1548, October, 1962.

16. Carr, L. W., CH-53A WIND TUNNEL INVESTIGATIONS, SER-65110,

Sikorsky Aircraft, February, 1963.
17. Lewis, R. B., ONE-HALF SCALE WIND TUNNEL TESTS OF A
RIGID COAXIAL ROTOR HEAD, SER-50465, Sikcrsky Aircraft,
February, 1967.

18. Linville, J. C., A REVIEW OF ROTOR HEAD-PYLON DRAG

REDUCTION, SER-50543, Sikorsky Aircraft, Hay, 1968.

19. Linville, J. C., AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF THE

EFFECTS OF ROTOR HEAD CONFIGURATION AND FUSELAGE YAW ON
THE WAKE CHARACTERISTICS AND ROTOR PERFORMANCE OF A 1/8
SCALE HELICOPTER, USAAVLABS Technical Report 69-94,
January, 1970.
20. Gifford, J., ONE-FIFTH SCALE WIND TUNNEL TESTS OF AN S-65
ROTOR HUB AND PYLONS, SER-65566, Sikorsky Aircraft, 1970.
21. Gifford, J. A. M., and Flemiing, R., PARASITE DRAG
STANDARD PROCEDURE, Sikorsky Aircraft, 1972 (unpublished).
22. Ruddell, A. J. and Kaplita, T. T., WIND TUNNEL TEST OF A
1/10 SCALE S-69 (ABC) FLIGHT DEMONSTRATOR, SER-69001,
Sikorsky Aircraft, December, 1972.

23. Werner, J. V., and Flemning, R. J., YUH-60A QUARTER

SCALE WIND TUNNEL TEST REPORT, SER-70531, Sikoz-ky
Aircraft, April, 1973.

44
 0
0 N0
oo 0

N C)

~0

0 0a:

'.0 - S)E
cI u L.

o wU
Uo

02 U0

In 0

~ ~
'OV80~~ ~ -lI3430Ien
00

U,45
 50r-
L FUSELAGE DRAG
REDUCED BY = 50%
S(HUB DRAG HELD CONSTANT)

40

I-- 30 CS-65
w CIýL$ 0 CH- 47C (I HUE)
w ,: S-550 S-58 0 S-61L
0 S-6200 S-667
Z 20, bO-1050 S-560
no ,0S-64
.r.=

0 10
o 0 REF IT
0i

0.I if I 1 liml
2 4 6 10 20 40 60 100 200
AIRCRAFT GROSS WEIGHT, 1000 LBS

Figure 2. Rotor Hub Drag Contribution to Total Helicopter Drag.

46

//
 20 FLASGED SYMBOLS INCLUDE
BLADE SN1ANKS NOT
ACCOUNTED FOR IN Ap

16
N
c"
Ir-

: 12

' 8 - fH Ap (.582 +.0349Ap- .00057 Ap)

4 - C REF. 18
0 REF. 19
M REF. 3

0 4 8 12 16 20
2
HUB FRONTAL AREA, FT

Figure 3. Hub Drag Trend With Hub Frontal Area for Unfaired Hubs.

47
 20 FLAGGED SYMBOLS INCLUDE
CU BLADE SHANKS NOT /
I.- ACCOUNTED FOR IN Ap /

, 16 -'

or /

r C1 SUMIN LOCALq
-, /0 fM ASSUMING - 1.25

0f
W
z
w
8
op(.582 +.0349Ap2
zi ~
4 ,q/ 0 0 REF. 19
REF.4
D' REF.3
R
0 REF.7

0 4 8 12 16 20
HUB FRONTAL AREA, FT 2

Figure 4. Hub Incremental Drag Trend With Hub Frontal Area for
Unfaired Hubs.

48
z 4z

oL
CD

zz
L<LL

00
Li.L

w ai

z 49
 C,1

LLLLLL - (l a

00 00
0 CA
-0. L&.;

Z 0r
'a4-

-J U- 4

w IY at~ a)

CLtil

Y38)
'I-N lD0UV n LL.-

soLD
 L 1 J-J

_ 3

c- C) L .t

tun)2 04-)

UEU
C) LJU
, 0 0.

0i Ct
0 L0

0.

o~C u. -

0
Id

LIa.

InI
0 U. 4-)
N
~IOL3V. OVO NOAd-SlI-
!>i J33~3~31N

51 so
 ui LLI
0D -E

D LL
M o1

4U 0

LJ

UUI
0 1;
LLL

CO N 0

~1V .H N3VJd~N4-)l
'D~G
z (U

52.
 24-
L 0 REF 3 (M .3)
6 REF 18
20
•• •• "• j•ELLIPSOIDAL FAIRING
20-
SW/O BLC

ARTICULATED
N

&u. 16--
16

m" RIGID

'12.
LiL
z .FULL SCALE
.• ARTICULATED

FULL SCALE
4 [ } •, E3FULL SCALE E

ARTICULATED

-A AFULL SCALE
DIRECT TILTING

0 20 40 60 80 I 00
ROTATIONAL SPEED, 96 MAX RPM

Figure 9. Rotational Effects on Incremental Rotor Hub Drag.

53
 40- DATA FROM REF 3

, 32. ELLIPSOID FAIRING

324

RIGID FAIRING
z
S16-
U
Z W/BLC
*/

D L8 ELLIPSOID FAIRING
INCLUDES PENALTY)
(
FOR BLC POWER
"'I I I I "t-- I
0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6
MACH NUMBER

Figure 10. Effect of Mach Number Variation on Incremental Hub Drag.

54
 OPEN SYMBOLS - FULL- SCALE TESTS (Re - 6.5 X 106)
SOLID SYMBOLS -I/6 SCALE TESTS (Ret 1.OX i0)
20-

16- UNFAIRED
! 6, HUB
fVP

0 IFAIRED
- HUB

PF
4

4 . .. P

0 I I I
-12 -8 -4 0 4 8
ANGLE OF ATTACK, DEG

Figure 11. Comparison of Full-Scale and One-Sixth Scale Rotor Hub Drag
Test Results.

55
 W NX

'%4J

CLC

Z.8c
C3

0.2

'U

OD 0 Ow

0 0 LL

'IN104400ovaa NOlIkd

56
 C
0a

4-I

c
0

41

CL

#a41
Pd ~0

Lai

L .0

57
 0

ON

.44

5.4

.9:4

-V
5- 0I
x r4
'WCW

0-

4.c0
ON

-r4
 0

,4 .

LL
t -44L

• •:C

0o

I.

!a

/0
r 4-

/U

/i/..- "N
•.

CJ

600
Lir

°C
* ',,--*----.--. -- - -- ~.

zz
a: I

to

4J I
 4 4 II

I 2 ~ ~~PYL.ON
TYPE A-MAXH *7 ;5o% -axNa'O
•
!.,PYLON TYPEt M T

+
S5%

0 10%'A

4 20%-

-T6
0 20 40 60 s0 100 0 20 40 60 sO t00
PERCENT PYLON LENGTH PERCENT PYLON LENGTH

PYLON TYPE A- MAX H At %6

t --

, * I '

4
S

0 20 40 60 SC O00
PE[RCENT PY'LON LENGTH

i2i

Figure 18. Calculated Surface Pressures Along the Centerlines

of Type A Pylons.

62

S/ ____
 mix I
PYLON TYPE IMAX.t ATI

MAI
IPY
I I
TYPE , -MAX.
I I
%

0 20 40 60 so 00 O0 20 40 60 sO t00
PERMNT PVLON LENGTH PERCENT PYLON LENGTH

PYLON TYI 8 -mAX. AT 75%

• .41

-. 4 A-

0 20 40 so so 100
PERCENT PYLON LENGTH

Figure 19. Calculated Surface Pressures Along the Centerlines

of Type B Pylons.

63

/I
/
 1.2

YLNYPc
C . MAX. H AT 25% PLNTP AHA 0
.8 MAX.N

".4 I I 0 to% I"

p i i IA•

.. 4

0 20 40 60 so O000 20 40 60 so too
PERCENT PYLON LENGTH
PERCENT PYLON LENGTH

.8-
PYLON TYPE c - MAX. . AT 75 %

-.4 . .

.4

..a

PERCENT PYLON LENGTH

ii

Figure 20. Calculated S3urface Pressures Along the Center",.

Of Type C Pylons.

64
 t/d
-.4

-.3-
100%
DIAMETER

Figu. 21. General Ellipsoidal Fairing Characteristics.

65
.i

i/
 _e 0

I.*J4 0 P4

4r41
I-d

D44

d:) '3dflSS3Hd 3omnIfs

66
 t m
- p

-c -- -r4 - fn :3

440

Iu 0

L-- 1. 0~

dI IinS38 -:vi

670
 00
0 ,

0wIL• -. 02

-j( U.r-.04 I . \,.

"'-.06
0 .I .2 .3 .4 .5
HUB FAIRING . t/d

'Figure 24. Calculated Equivalent Forebody Pressure Coefficients

for General Ellipsoidal Fairings.

68
 Figure 25. Geometric Model of a Pylon/Simulated Fuselage Upper Surface
Configuration.

0* b:

#4

* I / ' L AGE

L0 20 40 Go 00 100
PERCE•NT PYLON¢ LINGT"

Figure 26. Comparison of Calculated S,;rface Pressures for a Pylon

Configuration With and Without a C:•peeFuselage Simulation.

69
"?.

fro"

00

44

M C3

Im u

.. 1

70
 APPENDIX A

LESCRIPTION AND USE OF THE AUTOMATED PANELING TECHNIQUE

PROGRAM Y179k, Y179C

GENEPAL DESCRIPTION
The Automated Paneling Technique (APT; Program Designation
Y179A) was developed to simplify the generation of a geometric
model of any arbitrary shape compatible with Sikorsky Aircraft's
three-dimensional potential flow aerodynamic program (Y179L).
The program accepts inputs from the user which generally des-
cribe cross sections of the body along an axis by combinations
of curves and straight line segments. The cross sections are
ý.ncremented by the program based on specific constraints so
that each segment, and consequently each cross section, is
approximated by a series of straight line increments. The
various increments on adjacent cross sections along the
axis are then connected to form quadrilateral panels which input
describe the surface of the body as required by the aero-
dynamic technique. The generation of a proper geometric body
is simplified by reducing the user's responsibility for incre-
menting each cross section and properly identifying every panel
and its corner or nodal points. Because of the constraints
placed on the incrementing process, the panels generated by
the program should approximate the minimum number of panels
required to properly iiodel the surface of the body. Figure
A-1 illustrates the type of body model generated and the
coordinate- system used.

As stated 'sly, the user must describe selected cross

-`--.
sections alon. X, Y or Z axis by a combination of curves
and straight lines. The curves which the program accepts are
shown in Figure A-2. These segments are then incromented by
the program based on the r•llcwing constraints.
1. M1inimum and maximum increment length (i.e., the
straight line distance between two adjacent points
on the incremented cross section as shown in
c.LjuLe A-3) specified by the user.

2. Maximum increment length based on one-third the

separation distance between directly opposing
panels. The program assumes the first and last
increment at any cross section to be directly
opposing. This is not necessarily true for some
sections and this constraint may be removed by
the user.

71

/
 3. An increment length may not be more than 130% or
less than 70% of the length of increments adjacent
to it,
4. An increment must approximate the true curve by
a specified tolerance.
5. The total number of straight line increments must
equal the nursber of increments at the cross sbction
to which this section is connected to form the
quadrilateral panels.
6. User specified starting or ending increment lengths.
A priority is associated with each constraint and consequently
all sections generated nay not satisfy every constraint. In
this respect, certain constraints represent only approximate
restrictions. For instance, for some configurations, the
relative size of adjacent increments may not strictly adhere
to constraint 3 due to an inability to satisfy all the con-
straints which have been specified.
Any number of segments may be used to describe a given cross
section, but generally the more segments used, the more
likely it is that the program will not generate a proper model
of the body. For most cross sections, two or three segments
are sufficient. The points that must be specified by the user
for each segment type are shown in Figure A-2. The open symbols
define tangency conditions only and the solid symbols repre-
sent actual surface points. A single point is an acceptable
input, but cannot be used in conjunction with any other
segment. If a single point is used, the program assumes that
the section described consists of only that point, and it is
normally used to descrJbe the nose of the body. An example
of an input section and the resulting output section generated
by APT is shown in Figure A-3.
The APT progran assumes the body to be 3ymietric about the
Y-Z plane and consequently, only the half of the body in the
positive X direction is acceptable as input. The program will
automatically perforri linear interpolation to generate inter-
mediate body sections along the input axis as requested. This
feature allows the user to control panel length without re-
quiring additional input sections.
In addition to the general features already described, APT
incorporates several user oriented options. Some options
are designed to give the user more control over the distribu-
tion of surface panels generated, others are used to input
sections which do not conform well with the standard input
procedures. Plot options are also available to aid in gener-
ating a proper geometric model of the body.

72
The 3tandard input procec ure requires that cross sections
along the body axis (" axis) be described. Often a body or
sections of a body would be r.ore easily described and conform
to the incrementing process better if cross sections were
described along the "X" or *Y" axis. Fuselage sponsons,
rotor head fairings and wings are good examples of these types
of sections. The program will allow the user to describe
these'sections along the X or Y axis as requested. If this
option is selected, the cross sections must be input from the
maximum "X" or "Y" value to the minimum instead of the stan-
dard miniimum to maximum "Z" values. The proper order for
inputting segments at any station along the input axis is shown
in Figure A-4.
The program marches along the requested input axis increnent.tng
each section. The section at any one station may be described
by a different series of straight line increm-ents, depending on
the sections to which it is connected. That is, the number of
increments required to connect the section to the previous
section may differ from the number of increments required for
the section following it. Two sections can be described at
one location on the input axis. In this case, the program
assumes that the body has a discontinuity at this station
and a message stating that normal panels are required will be
written (this message will also appear in the punched card
output generated). Defining two cross sections at any one
location of the input axis is required only when the cross
sections to be modeled are of different shapes (for instance,
the location of an engine intake or exhaust). Two cross
section definitions are not required to alter the number of
panels describing the surface upstream or downstream of an
input section. The program will not generate panels normal
to the input axis and it is the user's responsibility to iden-
tify normal panels if a closed body is to be generated.
For basic fuselage shapes without a pylon, wings, or engine
nacelles, the body is modeled in one piece. However, portions
of a body may be more complex and require several more panels
in regions to obtain a proper geometric model. In this case,
the more complex regions of a body may be modeled independently
and the resulting output combined to form the complete con-
figuration. This is demonstrated in Figure A-5. The Advancing
Blade Concept aircraft (ABCTM) main rotor pylon and the engine
nacelles were modeled separately for two different reasons.
The main rotor pylon required several more input stations along
the axis than were required for the fuselage in the sane region.
Consequently, in order to reduce the number of panels required
to model the configuration, the two were modeled separately. A
model of the ABC with the pylon was generated prior to the
decision to add the engine nacelle models. In order to add the
nacelle, the panels describing the fuselage in that region were

73
 simply removed from the data deck and the panels required to
interface the nacelle (which was modeled by APT) were sub-
stituted. The panels at the wing, pylon, or nacelle inter-
section with the body must be inputted by the user. The
numbering sequence required for the nodal points is shown in
Figure A-6. A separate program (Y179C) is used to obtain plots
of the final combined configuration.

HELPFUL HlNTS
Although the automated paneling technique reduces and sinpli-
fies the user's responsibility, care must be taken to insure
that the body shape iL modeled correctly. The printed output
from the program is designed to aid the user in identifying
improperly modeled cross sections and nonplanar panels (i.e.,
surface panels which do not adequately approximate a flat
surface). The plotted output also aids in this task. This
section is designed to assist the user in proper use of Y179A.
Because of the numerous conrtraints placed on the incrementing
process, certain combinations of segments used in describing
a cross section may crct.e an improperly modeled section. The
user should also insure that individual segments are described
properly.
Experience has shown that two errors in Liputting circular and
super-ellipse segrfents occur frequently. The error which
occurs most often in describing a circular element is a result
of unequal radial distances from the center of the circle to
the first and last coordinate points of the circular segment.
If the two radial distances vary by more than 5%, the segment
inputs are identified as being incompatible and a message to
that effect is printed in the output.
The most common error occurring in describing a super-ellipse
segment occurs when the third input point does not lie in the
triangle shown in Figure A-2. Most often this occurs because
of improperly defined tangency lines. If the third point lies
outside the given triangle, the segment inputs are identified
as being incompatible and this message appears in the output.
Both of the errors listed above will cause the program to omit
the cross section at which the error occurs and continue. How-
ever, the program will terminate prior to generating the sur-
face panels.
Another error which sometimes occurs in describing the cross
section is that of inputting a small straight line segment
adjacent to a circular or super-ellipse segment having small
curvature. This condition may cause the increments at the seg-
ment intersection point to fail the ±30% size relationship.
This will not cause the program to terminate but may cause an
unsatisfact-ory increnent d.strDiution.

74

I
 I
The most common problem encountered in the surface modeling is
nonplanar panels generated by the program. If the sections
used to form the surface panels are similar in cross section
and have no discontinuities in the curvature, this problem is
seldom encountered. It is the user's responsibility to insure
that the sections used are similar. Often sections used in
forming surface panels are quite similar but, as mentioned,
discontinuities in curvature are present. This condition will
sometimes cause nonplanar panels to be generated.
The program incorporates a planar panel check which will iden-
tify what panels fail to satisfy the planar criteria and by
what percentage they are nonplanar. The user is responsible
for modifying the nonplanar panels if required. This can
usually be accomplished by simply changing the quadrilateral
panel to two triangular panels. Changing the specified surface
maximum and/or minimum often eliminates nonplanar panels and
it is recormended that these constraints be varied if non-
planar panels are a problem. Experience has shown that panels
within 9 or 10% out of plane are sufficiently accurate for use
in Y179L. In addition, nonplanar panels nay be identified in
regions of the body not of particular interest to the user or
in regions where the assumption of potential flow is not valid.
In this instance the user may consider the panel representation
su,.ficien tly accurate.
Despite the built-in safeguards, the automated paneling tech-
nique iS not fail-safe ad-a gradual buildup in the complexity
of the bodies-m6215110 is recommended.
IN1PUT .IUSTRUCTIOUS FOR Y179A
The Fuselage Geometry Definition Program requires punched card
input. The input procedure for Y179A is designed to simplify
the generation of a data deck describing a general fuselage or
body shape for input to the Three-Dimensional Potential Flow
Program (Y179L).
DESCRIPTION OF CARD INPUT
Card No. Columns Symbol Description
1 1-72 TITLE Title card - Any alphanumeric
characters acceptable. This
title will be used to identify
all output generated.
2 1- 4 TYPLT Plotting unit to be used if
plots are requested. (left
justified)
BLP - Calcomp Plots
Blank - No plots generated
8 Enter "l" if sideview plot is
desired
75
 bI
Card No. Columns Symbol Description

9 Enter
are "1" if cross section plots
desired

10 Enter "1" if isometric plots are

desired

12 KARD Enter "7" if a punched card data

deck compatible with Y179L is
desired.

15-21 XSC Plot scale in the "X" directicn

if plots are requested. Scale
should be inches/user's units
based on a positive "X" axis
length of 8 inches.

22-28 YSC Plot scale in the "Y" direction.

Scale in Inches/user's units
based on a total axis length of
8 inches.

29-35 ZSC Plot scale in the "Z" direction.

Scale in inches/user's units
based on a positive "Z" axis
length of 16 inches.
2 36-42 PREQ Any number >0.0 in this loca-
tion will cause an "X" to be
plotted at eacn cross section co-
ordinate point generated.
3 8-14 XPOF These numbers will be subtracted
15-21 YPOF from the X, Y coordinates of all
panels for plotting purposes.
If the minimum, X, Y panel co-
ordinates are greater than or
less than 0.0, the user may re-
quest an X, Y offset to obtain
a larger scale plot of the gen-
erated shape.
The following set up the basic input parameters for a body
shape.
4 8-14 BSLAST Enter the location of the last
input cross section for this
body. The program accounts for
a zero offset in the "Z" direc-
tion so that actual body station
values may be used.

76
Card No. Columns Symbol Description
15-21 DSMI Enter the minimum increment
length acceptable for this body.
This value is subject to change
by later input.
22-28 DSIfl Enter maximum increment length
acceptable for this body. This
value is subject to change by
later input and/or program re-
quirements.
29-35 EF By entering any nun r >0.0 the
user may expand or cuntract the
input coordinates by the value
of the number entered.
36-42 XOVR Any number >0.0 in this loca-
tion will override the maximum
increment length criteria based
on the separation distance of
opposing increments.

5 1- 6 CTMMIS If no coordinate interchange

option is required enter "Z to
Z". If an interchange is re-
quired enter:

"X to Z" - Cross sections will

be input at constant "X" loca-
tions from maxim=u.i to minimum
values.
"Y to Z" - Cross sections will
be input at constant "Y" loca-
tions from maxim=u to minimum
values.
The preceding cards are required for everZ body shape (for
instance, a fuselage, pylon, nacelle or wing) to be generated.
The following' cards are required for every cross section input
location. The card number will be preceded by "IS" to indicate
they are required for each input cross section.
Card :Jo. Columns Symbol Description
IS 1 1- 3 Enter BS* to indicate the start
of a new body section.
8-14 BSNS Enter the body station at which
the cross section to be described
is located.
77
 (

Card No. Columns Symbol Description

15-21 SEG Enter the number of segments
used to describe the cross sec-
tiov. If the inputs for this
BS are identical to the previous
station, a zero should be entered.
No segment inputs are required
in this case.

22-28 DBS Enter the number of body stations

desired to be interpolated be-
tween the previously input sta-
tion and this station.
29-35 DSMNC If a change in the minimum sur-
face distance is desired, enter
the new DSMN. This change af-
fects this in;ut station and all
succeeding stations.

36-42 DSMXC If a change in the maximum sur-

face distance is desired, enter
the new DSMX. This change af-
fects this input station and all
succeeding stations.

One card Is required to Identify each segment used in describing

the total cross section. The total number of "segment cards"
should equal the value entered in Columns 15 - 21 on Card IS 1
(SEG). If thib value is zero, the inputs are assumed identical
to the previous segment inputs and no segment cards are re-
quired.
The segment cards have the following ?ormat:
Card No. Columns Symbol Description
SEG 1- 3 Enter the number of the segment.
The segments should be numbered
counterclockwise from top to
bottom for the standard "Z to Z"
input.

SEG 5 NTYP Enter the number designatIng the

type of segment to be used,
0 - single point
I - straight line
2 - circle
3 - super-ellipse
(See Figure A-2)

78
 ii.

Card No. Columns Symbol Description

8-14 X1 Xl
15-21 YL Y1
22-28 X2 X2
29-35 Y2 Y2
36-42 X3 X3 - If a specific nurber of in-
crements is desired for a
straight line segment, ernter t.'e
number desired.

"43-49 Y3 Y3
50-56 X4 X4
57-63 Y4 Y4
64-70 X5 X5
71-77 Y5 Y5
78-80 MIEQ A negative integer entered will
cause the length of the first
increment of that segment to
approximate the product of the
integer and t he minimum surface
distance specified.

A positive integer entered will

cause the last increment of that
segment to approximate the pro-
duct of the integer and the min-
imum surface distance specified.

If the segment is specified as

circular, only a positive value
is allowed and the segment is
divided into the integer number
of increments.

79

/ 1
The required cards for the next body station along the input
axis follow the last segment card (starting with card IS 1).
If the body station entered is equal to the previous body
station, the program assumes that this station has been described
by two different cross sections and that additional input panels
will be required at that station.{
A blank card should follow the last body station segment cards
if another body shape is to be generated. If no other shape is
required enter "END" in column 1-3.
Required CPU time for a typical 400 panel configuration is ap-
proximately 1 minute.

80
INPUT INSTRUCTIONS FOR Y179C
Y179C is an auxiliary three-dimenuional body plotting routine.
Its purpose is to enable the user to obtain plots of a body
shape u3ing card output generated by Y179A.

The card output from Y179A which describes the surface panels
for an arbitrary body m.ay be modified and additions to the
body may be incorporated. Isometric, cross section, and/or
side view plots of the resulting body may then be obtained by
using Y179C.
The following cards are required for every body shape to be
plotted:
Card Columns Description
1 1-78 Title Card - Any alphanumeric
data is acceptable.
2 6-10 Total number of panels des-
cribing the body shape (N -
integer, right justified).
Format for Panel nodal points:
Card No. Panel No.
3 1 Node 1 (XY,Z) Node 2 (X,Y,Z)
4 1 Node 3 (X,Y,Z) Node 4 (X,Y,Z)

2N+1 N Node 1 (X,YZ) Node 2 (XY,Z)

21+2 N Node 3 (X,Y,Z) Node 4 (XY,Z)

(For triangular pawils, the

fourth point is the. same as
the first point).
Fields of 10 starting in
Column 11.
The panel cards are normally generated by Y179A, but panels may
be added or omitted by the user.

Card No. Columns Description

211+3 Same as Card 2 of Y179A input.
2N+4 Same as Card 3 of Y179A input.
2:1÷5 Same as Card 5 of Y179A input.

81
The following card is used to identify a coordinate system off
set for various panels if required. For instance, if the input
panels represent mlultiple bodies, then the separation distance
between bodies may be changed.
Card No. Columns Description
2:1+6 1- 5 Panel number "NID" (Integer-
right justified).
6-10 Panel number "NJE" (Integer-
right justified).
11-20 X17 These values will be
21-30 Yq added to all panels
31-40 ZV between panels IM and 14E.

This card may be repeated as many times as required. A zero

value f-br ND indicates that no more panels require an offset.
A blank card should follow the preceding cards if another
shape or shapes are to be plotted. If no other shape is
required, enter "MID" in colutans 1-3.
Required running time for a typical 400 panel configuration
is approximately 1 minute.

82
 0

I-f

Co S
00

z 0
•-- w. 1

Sp-

83S
 Z w)
cn w

00
ZW

00

010
CY'

Snn

w - 0

I--

- *84
-T--

WI 0
* 44

V)

04

zz I
0rw
o~A0

U))
z¶
85Q 0
 FRONT VIEW
(Z TO Z OPTION)
+ Y

+X -x

TOP VIEW
Y TO Z OPTION)
+Z

+X -x

SIDE VIEW
+ y X TO Z OPTION)

+ z-z

Figure A-4. Required Input Order for Segments

Describing a Cross Section.

06
 4.'
C;

0
I44

4-I

U)

0
44'

87-
 )3

i4 (TRIANGULAR PANELS f
2

4 3

, N (QUADRILATERAL PANELS)
7 N

PANELS MUST BE SEQUENCED SUCH THAT

92x ik
IS IN THE SURFACE OUTWARD NORMAL
VECTOR DIRECTION.

Figure A-6. Required Input Order for Corner Points

Describing an Input Panel.

88
 APPENDIX B
DESCRIPTION AllD USE OF THE TIIREE-DIIMSIONAL AERODYNAMIC
ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE-PROGRAM Y179L

GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The analytical technique used to predict the aerodynamic flow
field on and about an arbitrary lifting or nonlifting con-
figuration is described in more detail in Reference 9. The
basic potential flow methods used in the technique are des-
cribed in detail in References 10 through 12.
The technique requires that the surface of the body be des-
cribed by a finite nunber of approximately flat panels as
shown in Figure B-1. Any lifting sections such as wings and
tail surfaces are also modeled by a vortex lattice system on
the mean carter surface as shown in rigure D-2. A constant
source strength is distributed uniforn.lly over the surface of
each surface panel and the vortex lattice orystem consists of
bound and trailing line vortices. ThL geraral solution of the
flow field is then obtained by -D!ving a set of linear
simultaneous equations relating tha •:fluenca of each source
distribution and line vortex on all the other surface panels,
control points and the points at wihich the Kutta condition is
applied for each lifting section. The solution of these
equations yields the source and vortex strengths from which
the flow velocities and directions about the body or bodies
can be calculated.
"The aerodynamic program accepts inputs from the user de-
scribing the surface panels by their corner or nodal points.
The order of input is arbitrary since each panel is described
independently. This feature also allcis the aerodynmaic
solution of multiple bodies. The technique accepts triangular
as well as quadrilateral panels.
The vortex lattice system for lifting sections is generated by
the program, given the spanwise position of trailinq vortices
and the requested chordwise position of the bound vorticity.
The particular vortex lattice technique used requires that the
chordwise distribution of vorticity be known. A modified
.Iulthopp lifting surface analysis is employed to determine the
vorticity distribution. This feature is inherent in the
program and elininates the requirement for specifying the
vorticity distribution. This method is most accurate when
applied to thin, high aspect ratio wings and is less accurate
for lifting sections that are very thick or have a snall
aspect ratio. It is, however, considered sufficient for even
these shapes since only the chordwise vorticity distribution

89
is determined by this method and not the vorticity strengths.
The program is capable of handling arbitrary configurations at
angles of attack and/or in yawed flow. Engine inflow or ex-
haust can be simulated by requesting fluid ejection or suction
through the surface of individual panels. In addition to these
features, the program incorporates several user oriented op-
tions for rotating the bodies or coo.'..:-'iate offsets. These
features allow the user to vary winqit%4dy incidence, wincj
dihedral, and fuselage/stores separation distance without
generating additional body descriptions.

It is important to emphasize that the program has been

exercised extensively for helicopter configurations with com-
plex pylon and engine nacelle configurations, but has not been
nearly so well exorcised on winged configurations and multiple
bodies. It is therefore possible that certain lifting con-
figurations or combinations of configurations may yield un-
satisfactory results although none have been identified to
date.
The general characteristics required of the panel description
of arbitrary configurations are outlined beluw.
1. Surface panels should be approximately planar.
2. Smal. panels adjacent to large panels should be
avoided since the accuracy of a region is that
associated with the largesz panel.
3. Long, narrow panels should be avoided in regions
where accuracy is considered important.
4. For wings, the trailing edge presents a difficult
region to nodel since the surface panels close
very sharply. The trailing-edge panels should be
small or the trailing edge should be modeled
more bluntly.
5. The only restriction on order of input for a body
is that lifting sections nust be modeled from
outboard to the inboard sections.
6. The trailing-edge bound vortex location should not
ýbe greater than 95% of tle chord.
7. The point at which th? Kutta condition is applied
is variable and is deternined by the program from
the relation,

/C)KP - .04 ;(1-(X/C)B.-.:)

÷C4T+ + (X/C)TV]

90
 .. a---t..lii" ... .....-. f+-

where (X/C)Kp - the Kutta condition point

(X/C)BTE - the chordwise position of the last
bound vortex

(X/C)TV - the length spec .fied for the

trailing vortices, c is the chord
length.
For instance, for a trailing edge bound vortex at 95% of the
chord and a trailing vortex length of 500%, the !,utta point
will be applied at approximately the 115% point.
Application and Substantiation
The three-dimensional aerodynamic analysis technique has a
wide range of applications to the design and analysis of
helicopter configurations. The resulting output supplies
surface pressures and the local flow direction on the body.
This allows early identification of surface airloads and aids
in the placement of airspeed instrumentation and antennae.
This information also aids the designer in identifying regions
Qf possible flow separation.
In ..ddition to the flow characteristics on the surface of the
body, the velocity magnitude and direction at points off the
surf-Ace can be computed. This feature allows the designer to
investigate the potential interference effects the body maay
havo an the rotor or other helicopter components.
"The calculated results from the Y179L program have been
correlated for fuselage configurations ranging from simple
cyl44drical bodies to complex shapes such as the Army/Sikorsky
ABC"' with auxiliary engine nacelles and the winged rotary
system research aircraft (RSRA) configuration. Typical
correlation for the configurations analyzed is shown in
Figures B-3 to D-5. Off-body velocities have not been correlated
due to lack of experijental data.
The capabilities of the aerodynamic analysis technique have
proven extremely useful and have been used extensively in the
design and analysis of the ABCTM, RSRA and in particular the
Army/Sikorsky YUU-60A and the commercial S-76.
Input Instructions for Y179L
The required input descrii•ing the body to be analyzed adheres
to the general rules identified in Appendix A. The automated
paneling technique (APT) dea:cribed in Appendix A was designed
to complement Y179L and its use is recormended.

91
 U6

Card Columns Syntol Description

1 1-72 TITLE Any alphanumeric title.
2 1-10 REFA Desired reference area for
force and moment coefficients.
11-20 REFL Desired reference length for
moment coefficients.
3 1-10 ALPHA Angle of attack, deg (positive
nose up)
11-20 BETA Angle of yaw, deg (positive
nose right)
4 5 MONLY 1 - Perform Multhopp Analysis
only
0 - Perform total analysis
10 MPUST 1 - Printer plots of Multhopp
analyses requested
2 - Plots and Multhopp
influence coefficients
requested
0 - Neither requested
15 NGPRNT 1 - Panel unit vectors kinted
2 - Panel coordinates in pane:
system printed
0 - Neither printed
20 NPR11T 1 - Solution matrix and con-
stant matrix printed
2 - Panel influence coefficient
matrix printed for panels
NC11l to NC112
0 - ZNeither printed
21-25 ZXMI (See above)
26-30 ZJCM2 (See above)
35 MPRIT2 1 - :lulthopp loading functions
printed
2 - ftulthopp wing geometry
printed
3 - Wing camber computations
printed
4 - Full 4ulthopp influence
coefficient matrix printed
0 - No additional printout

92

---- - -
Card Columns Symbol Description I
5 5 NSAV1 0 - Do not file geometry data
-1 - Geometry data not on file -
initiate file write of
geometry data (TChis feature
is used to store various
geometric dcaracteristics '
to avoid time-consiuiing com-
putations if subsequent runs
are anticipated for this
sha,) .
1 - Get'.,' try data on file -
geometry data is to be read
from file
10 IJSAV2 0 - Do not file solution
-1 - Solutions to various flow
conditions are not on file
- initiate file write of
solution
1 -Solutions for various flow
conditions are on file -
search file for required
soluticn - calculate
solution and write on file
if solution is not currently
on file.
Various sections of the body or bodies may be inputted indepen-
dently if desired. The fo'lowing cards are required for each
individual section used (maxinum of five sections).
6 1- 5 TIYPfl Body Section type:
:IL,S - nonlifting, symetric
:JL,NS - nonliftiny, nonsym-metric
L,S - lifting, syl.mietric
L,ZIS - lifting, nonsyr.z.i•etric
13-72 Any alphanumeric title de- 4
scribing this section
7 5-10 "iop Total number of surface panels
describing this subsection.
(Ii the section type on card
6 designates a nonsyirnetric
section, the body is assez.ied to
be in t'o subsections, one on
either side of the Y-Z plane).
8 1-10 XOF Location of origin in section
11-20 YOr coordinate system. Trhese values
21-30 ZOF will be added to the panel
coordinates to obtain coordin-
ates in reference system
93
 Card Columns Syrbol Description

8 (cont'd) 31-40 XROT Angle in degrees which the

input coordinates should be
rotated about the input X axis.
41-50 ZROT Angle which the input coordin-
ates should be rotated about
the input Z axis.
9 1-10 - Not used by program.
11-20 XC1 Coordinates for panel node
21-30 YC1 point 1, first panel.
31-40 ZCJ
41-50 XC2 Coordinates for panel node
S1-60 YC2 point 2, first panel.
61-70 ZC2
10 1-10 - Not used.
11-20 XC3 Coordinates for panel node
21-30 YC3 point 3, first panel.
31-40 ZC3
41-50 XC4 Coordinates for panel mode
51-60 YC4 point 4, first panel.
61-70 ZC4
Cards 9 and 10 are repeated for each panel describing the
particular body section identified. If the body section has
been identified as nonsymmetric, cards 7 and 8 are repeated
for subsection 2 and cards 9 and 10 are repeated for each
panel in subsection 2. Symimetric sections do not require
additional inputs in yawed flow. After the last panel input
card of the last body section, enter "END OF PANEL INPUT"
starting in column 1.
The following cards are inputted after the cards described
previously. Since these cards represent panel or poin,
rotation options, they are preceded by an "R".
Card Columns SAI Description
R1 5 IR Body section containing points
or panels rcquiring a specific
rotation. A ze.,n is required
to exit from this uitinn.
6-10 NR Number of panels or points
requiring rotation. (Integer-
right justified.)

94
 V
Card Colunins Syr•bo 1cscription

11-20 XR Location about which panels or

21-30 YR points should be rotatax.
31-40 "R
41-50 IL Angle in degrees which points
or panels should be rotated
about input X axis.

51-60 RZ Angle in degrees which points

or panels should be rotated
about input Z axis.

If panel node points are to be rotated, repeat

the following card for each panel required up
to ":N.".

1- 5
12 NIP Panel ntuiber for which rota-
tions are required. A zero
will exit to card 13. (Integer-
right justified.)
6-10
11-15 U•OD 1
NOD 2 Panel node points which should
16-20 NOD 3 be rotated. (Integer-right
21-25 110d4 justified.)
If specific points on the body are to be rotated,
repeat the following card for each desired point.
R3 1-10 Al (X, Y, Z) coordinates of
11-20 01 point to be rotated.
21-30 C1

31-40 A2 MX, Y, Z) coordinates of next

41-50 02 point to be rotated.
51-60 C2
The program Yill continue to read cards Ill through R3 until a
zero value has been entered for IR on card lIl.

Lifting section input (if required) follows the cards

previously described. These cards are preceded by an "L" to
designate that they are required only if the body conteins
lifting sections.

95
Card Columns Symbol Description
Li 5 IV Body section number requiring
lifting section Inputs.

10 LV Subsection 1 or 2-

11-15 NSV Number of trailing vortices for

this subbection (enter zero
for subsection 2 of symmetric
section).

16-20 NCV Number of bound vortices for

this subsection.

L2 8 fields AV Spanwisc positions of trailing

(8UP1.O) vortices - entered outboard
to inboard.

L3 8 fields BV Chordwise positions of bound

(8F10.0) vortices - the last value
designates the length of the
trailing vortex. Entered from
leading edge to trailing edge
in percent chord.
The lifting section inputs must be repeated for each lifting
section. Only card Li is required for subsection 2 if the
section is symmetric.

The following card(s) are input after the lifting section

cards (if applicable). These cards are used to specify fluid
ejection or section for specific panels and will be preceded
by an "F".
Card Columns Symbol Description

Fl 1- 5 PNP Panel number requiring fluid

ejection or suction (Integer-
r.4a~t Justified).

6-.15 PNV Prescribed normal velocity for

this panel entered as a ratio
of freestream velocity.
Positive velocity is in direc-
tion of surface outward normal.

Card F1 may be repeated for a maximum of 50 panels. A zero

value for PNP on card F1 is required to designate that no more
panels require prescribed normal velocities.

96
The followinrg cards designate various output options and will
be preceded by an "0".

Card Columns Symbol Description

01 1- 5 M Number of waterlines (Y -
constant) along which surface
pressures are to be calculated s
by interpolation between panel
control points. (Maximum 16,
Integer-right Justified.)

6-10 L Number of body lines along

which surface pressures are to
be calculated ( G- constant)
eo 00, top centerline; e- 18001,
bottom centerline; where e *
tan-1 ( XY~-)
(MFax imum 1,Ineer-r ight
Justified.)

10-15 NOB Number of off-body points at

which velocities ar.'! to be
calculated (maximum 216
Integer-right Justifiedi. if
the following option is chosen,
NOB represents the number of
radial stations mn the rotor
blade (maximum 12).

16-20 NPSI Number of azimuthal positions

(00 to 1800) at whtch to calcu-
late the normal, radial and
tangential induced velocities
at the rotor blade stations
specified ( 4 - 180 0 /(NPSI-l).
Sign convention for velocities
is:
normal velocitie3-downflow is
negative
radial velocities-positive
towards the tip
tangential velocities-positive
towards the leading edge
(maximum 18, Integer-right
Justified). ¶

97
 IV M ,0 repeat the following card as required:

02 8 fields WL Enter the waterline at which

(8FlC.0) surface pressures are to be
calculated (eight waterlines per
card).
If Li 0 enter the following caras:
Card Columns Symbol Description
03 1-10 YWL Enter the Y value from which
the bodyline angles should be
computed.
04 8 Fields BL Enter the bodyline angles along
(8F10.0) which surface pressures are to
be calculated (eight values
per card).
If NOB > 0 and NPSI - 0, repeat the following card as required:
05 1-10 X Coordinates of th- off-body
11-20 y point at which velocities are
21-30 Z to be calculated.
If NOB ),0 and NPSI • 0, enter the following cards as required:
06 8 Fields RAD Nondimensional radial stations
(8F10.0) at which induced velocities are
to be calculated. Entered from
root to tip (eight values per
card).
07 1-10 ZR Z location of rotor hub
11-20 YR Y location of rotor hub
21-30 RRT Radius of rotor (units in which
body is described).
31-40 SHAFT Shaft tilt in degrees, forward
tilt is negative.
41-50 CONE Amount of coning in degrees.
The program requires five auxiliary tape or mass storage units.
The units are referenced in the program as units 8, 9, 10, 11
and 12. The data stored on each unit is described below.
Unit(s) Description
8, 9, 10 Influence coefficients for all the panels and vortex
lattices are stored on these units. These are
working storage areas and are required for every
, Job executed.

98
Unit(s) Description

11 This unit is used to store the solution for various

angles of attack and/or yaw. This unit is required
only if NSAV2 on Card 5 of tJie input deck equals -1
or 1. If the body ia to be analyzed i, yawed flow,
a yawed flow condition should be used to initiate
solution filing.
12 Unit 12 is used to store various geometric data
required for the analysis, such as panel unit
vectors and panel coordinates in panel syL sm.
This unit is required only if NSAV1 on CaW, 5 is
-1 or 1. (Noto: if NSAV1 equals 0, the value of
NSAV2 is irrelevant).
Because of the user oriented way in which the panels are de-
scribed, this aerodynamic technique requires a significant
a,•ount of storage. Consequently, only a tctal of 500 panels
may be used to model a given body (250 if yawed flow is
desired for a symmetric section). This total includes all
surface panel.% and vortex lattice panels.
The program was oriqinally developed for a UNlIVAC 1110 computer
system and has bean converted to the IDM 360 systoem at the
Army Computing Facility at Ft Eustis, Virgiiia. The program
has been exercised primarily on the UNIVAC 1110 systeL, and
therefore an accurate estimate of the run tine on the ID1I
system is not yet available. The approximate run times are
shown in Figure B-4. This figure also shows the tine savings
associated with using the data storage options identified or.
Card 5. ?or some winged configurations, the running time may
significantly increase if trailing edge surface panels are
located very close to a bound vortex element. The running
times also vary significantly depending on the options
requested on cards 01 to 07.

99
 v
*14

pa

>14

'0

1.4 Eq

r4)
0-4

1001
 41~

\144

LL.r

04

$4

-45

b4

C144

101
 f, ap a. 1 psi,0 o-4 9
. . . . . . .t
. ......

- ..
A C L~ . . ... .. ... .~ . . . . ,

0 40 00 120 ti 0 Im
P16 40 2110 32 3G0 4100 ,10 400 WOSW05
WOOVSTAT10%I, *eINCHE
I.I

Figure B-3. Comparison of Ex~perimental and Calculated

Surface Pressures on RSRA One-S~xth Scale
C147CPANS4O

Model.

* I 450 SWEPT WINlG

_ ____
.... SECTION - 63, A012 _

. . 01.20..

Surface"rCALCULATEDUsPoERRSJRAOI

- r EXPCRINTAL
UPP3ER SUAF
I
. ... 0.

#A.

IEXPERMNA~7
ITCE
_EIIM TL OWEN
S - ~CA4CUATED LOWER SURFACIE

0 20 40 60 so 100
PERCENT CHORD

Figure B-4. Comparison of Experimental and Calculated

Surface Prersures on a 45-Degree Swept Wing.

102
 -I.t4

00IOfA6A 9

* ~, . , *~* [y +-f j
~

0 _______7-

AS,.i~

o 10 o 3 0
6O SO 60 7o 0 90 1
bOOY STATION 'L LING?,,

Figure B-5s. Compurison of Experimental and Calculated Surface

% Pressures on~ Model 1 Fuselage (Reference:
NASA TH X-3185).

103
 24 .. I-I . .... .. ..

C, , I,

INITIAL RUN

8 . . . -, ..... . --I ,L. ÷ ÷-

40 ... -UI STORD D
0.

ou (NO. ODl
PNL CPU IO-- i I
1-7----LonIBM30---S--y----
-TTAE.
B-6 Tim
e'o
INUMBELRU --
OF PANELS:
0. L USQET RUN
. ,/ L "'• : iUSING STOHREDu DATA

' - S--
;- ,"- .----- . .•. . -. - - • - -
4- 4
- _
- -

0 I1O0 200 300 400 500 600

TOTAL NUMBER OF PANELS
(NO. OF PANELS ON HALF-BODY FOR SYMMETRIC BODIES )

010

Figure B-6. Estimated Cpu Time for Y179L on 13t4 360 System.

104
 APPEIDII% C

DESCRIPTIONQ A*flD ULIE OP TIlE HUB 1iVG P[:!DICTiO0:

PROGRAM - Y179Z

(.C::LAL DESCRIPTION

The Hub Drag Prediction :lethod has been incorporated in a

computer prograrm designated Y179Z. The program accepts inputs
by the user giving a geometric description of the hub/pylon
configuration of interest along with various ermpirical data
if applicable. The program then uses interpolated pylon and
fairing surface pressures (if applicable) to predict the total
incrciaental drag of thu rotor hub configuration. The prograim
identifies the pylon pressures used in the calculation and
prouuces printer plots of the pressure distribution. The
prograrm also allows the user to input a specific pressure
distribution although this feature is not normally used be-
cause the required calculations can easily be performed if
the pressure distribution is known.

Required LPU tirae for Y179Z is less than one r "nute.

Input Instructions for Y179Z
Card Columns Symbol Description
1 1-72 TITLE Any alphanwueric title
2 1 TPC Type of pylon configuration
(i.e., A, 13, C). If blank,
the program assumes that pylon
pressures will be inputted.

1-10 PC(l) Pylon length (t)

11-20 PC(2) Pylcn width ( w)
21-30 PC(3) Pylon maximum height ( h)
31-40 PC(4) Axial location of pylon
maximum. height (Z11)
3 1- 2 IIIU Type of hub configuration
UF - unfaired hub
EF - ellipsoidal fairing
RF - rigid fairing
10-20 IIC(l) Axial location of hub on pylon
(z)
21-30 I1C(2) Hub frontal area (sq ft)
(A or Af)
31-40 I1C(3) Hug diameter (d)
41-50 IIC(4) Fairing thickness (t)
51-60 |IC(5) Fairing skin friction co-
efficient (Cf)

105
 Card Columns Symbol Description
4 1-.0 SC(i) Shaft height
11-20 SC(2) Shaft diameter
21-30 SC(3) Shaft frontal area (As)(sq ft)
31-40 SC(4) Shaft drag coefficient (CDs)
Non-zero values on Card 4 are required for unfaired hubs only
if the shaft height is considered sufficient to remove the hub
from the local increased velocity region due to the pylon.
5 1-10 BSC(l) Blade shank length
11-20 BSC(2) Blade shank frontal area/
shank. (ABS) (sq ft)
21-30 BSC(3) Blade shank drag coefficient
(CDBS)

If the pylon type (TPC) on card 2 is left blank, the following

cards are required. These cards will be preceded by a *P"
to designate that they are required only if the pylon pressures
are to be input.
P1 1- 5 IPP Number of pylon axial po, itions
for which pressures are to be
input (Integer-right justified).
Repeat the following card for each pressure input
P2 1-10 ZL Location along pylon axis at
which surface pressure acts.
(Z/1 - percent)
11-20 CPZ Surface pressure coefficient
at this location.
If another hub configuzation is to be analyzed, enter a blank
card after the preceding cards ind enter new data starting
with card 1. If no other hub configuration is required, enter
"END" in columns 1 - 3.

, 10

106
 LIST OF SYMJOLS
A projected frontal area, sq ft
CD drag coefficient referenced to frontal area
Cf skin friction coefficinnt
Cp pressure cce fficient,
d diameter
f equivalent flat plate area, drag/dynamic pressure,
sq ft
h pylon maximum height, in
t pylon length, in
14 Mach nunber
q dynamic pressure, sq ft
Re Reynolds number based on hub diameter (unless
otherwise stated)
t hub thickness, in
Z distance along pylon length, in
Subscripts

DS blade shanks or cuffs

F faired rotor hub
H,p unfaired rotor hub
S rotor shaft or shaft fairing

107 204-76

/'